JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present is a revision filed by Sukhwant Singh and Jaswant Singh and it has been directed against the order dated 10th July, 1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who accepted the revision petition filed by Amarjit Singh and set aside the order dated 24/27th Nov. 1995 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Patiala, who while taking the cognizance of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., came to the conclusion that there existed breach of peace. The Executive Magistrate invoked the emergent provisions under Section 1 46(1), Cr.P.C., and appointed the Naib Tehsildar as Official Receiver of the land in dispute. The proceedings started on police report filed under Section 145, Cr.P.C. The Executive Magistrate vide order dated 24th/27th Nov. 1995 came to the conclusion that there was likelihood of the breach of peace with respect to the land comprised in Khasra No. 38 Min. measuring 3 Killas 13 Marlas situated in village Sahanipur, Sub Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, District Patiala, and sensing the breach of peace and by invoking the emergent provisions he appointed the Naib Tehsildar, Dudhan Sadhan as a receiver to maintain the suit land. Directions were also given to the Receiver to auction the land and deposit the amount in the Government Treasury. This revision petition I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri Vinay Mittal, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Shri Arun Sanghi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Before I proceed further I would like to reproduced para No. 2 of the impugned judgment of Shri O.P. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala :-

(3.) The impugned order was passed without hearing the counsel for the parties and without considering the documents filed by the petitioner in a hasty manner.3. After hearing both the sides and going through the record of the case, I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. The impugned order dated 24-11-1995 passed by the Executive Magistrate goes to show that the description of boundaries of the area measuring 3 Kanals 13 Marlas have not been given in this order. Similarly, the order under Section 146, Cr.P.C. issued on the basis of this order, also goes to show that the boundaries or the other description regarding this area has not been given for that reason the order is vague. It is also not disputed that a civil litigation is pending between the parties. The Revision petitioner Amarjit Singh has filed a suit against party No. 1 which is pending before the Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala, and in that case, stay has already been granted before the start of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. It is further alleged that the land measuring 24 Kanals 14 Marlas was allotted to Lakshmi Devi and others and the petitioner is their attorney. Assa Bai and other predecessor-in-interest of party No. 1 challenged the allotment of Lakshmi Devi before the Hon'ble High Court but their petition was dismissed. Suit filed by them was also withdrawn later on. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has cited, AIR 1985 SC 472 : (1985 Cri LJ 752), Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-