MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the orders Annexures P.7 and P.8 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barnala, under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) the petitioners are seeking their quashment.

(2.) THE petitioners' contention is that this High Court vide judgment dated November 20, 1959 (Annexure P1) set aside the consolidation scheme with regard to the allotment of 69 Bighas 15 Biswas of land of the proprietors/right holders of the village Panchayat-respondent No. 4. During the consolidation proceedings 69 Bighas 15 Biswas of land of the proprietors was kept reserved for village Panchayat for its income, without paying any compensation to the proprietors. Hence the consolidation scheme was challenged by the proprietors in CWP No. 892 of 1958, which was partly allowed vide Annexure P.1. After this judgment the Consolidation authorities were duty bound to redistribute the said 69 Bighas 15 Biswas of land amongst the proprietors of the village, inclusive of the petitioners. The matter was delayed. Ultimately the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated March 2, 1995 (Annexure P.2) under Section 21(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short, the Act) whereby he withdrew 116 kanals 5 marlas equivalent to 69 Bighas 15 Biswas of land from the Gram Panchayat and redistributed it amongst the proprietors of the village specifying their shares in the said joint Khewat. The proprietors inclusive of the petitioners were also put in possession of the said land. Gram Panchayat has not filed any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. Instead the Gram Panchayat filed Civil Suit No. 239 on April 15, 1996, for permanent injunction. It also filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the petitioners/proprietors from taking possession of the land in dispute. Vide order Annexure P.3 dated June 14, 1996, this petition was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant such a relief in view of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed their joint reply, wherein they averred that the petitioners are not in possession of the disputed land; rather as per the entries made in the Jamabandi, the Gram Panchayat is owner in possession of the disputed land. The land was being continuously leased out by the Gram Panchayat through BDO. Since the petitioners wanted to take possession of the disputed land forcibly, the proceedings were rightly initiated firstly under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and later on under Section 145 of the Code. There are more than 100 co-sharers of the disputed land and unless the land is partitioned amongst them there is every likelihood of breach of peace.