MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, GUHLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated September 28, 1987, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guhla, on the complaint made by the Station House Officer,. Police Station Guhla, against the petitioners and respondent No. 4.

(2.) THE police presented a Kalendra -before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guhla, for proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the parties the petitioners on one side as party No. 2 and respondent No. 4 on the other hand as party No. 1 and both the parties submitted their replies. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate come to the conclusion that the land in dispute belongs to Panchayat and party No. 2 (herein the petitioners) was in unauthorised occupation thereof. The Gram Panchayat after securing their ejectment from the competent Court had obtained actual possession of the disputed land and then gave the land on lease to respondent No. 4 and delivered him its possession at the spot. The petitioners submitted in their reply that the proceedings pertaining to delivery of possession and lease etc. were all bogus and Girdawri entries were all wrong as they have been in continuous possession of the said land for the last 20 years and are in possession even now. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ultimately was unable to decide as to which party was in - possession of the land in dispute and since both the parties claimed to be in possession of the paddy crops standing thereon which was quite ripe and mature and ready for harvestering the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate formed an opinion that the existing position may give rise to a serious clash between the parties and therefore, he passed an order of attachment of the disputed land and appointed the Tehsildar as superdar thereof.

(3.) IN reply to the petition, respondent No. 1 has filed a reply stating that operation of the order dated September 28, 1987 under section 145 Cr.P.C. has already taken place on September 24, 1987, before the orders dated October 5, 1987, passed by this Court. It is, however, mentioned in reply that attachment had already been effected. The attachment has neither been set aside nor quashed. However, in view of the order of this Court, the proceedings were stayed by respondent on October 16, 1987. A reply has also been given by respondent No. 1 and the facts mentioned in the order have been repeated. Reply on behalf of Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) has been filed by way of an affidavit of Sub Singh, Panch. It is mentioned that the Assistant Collector First Grade found the petitioners to be in an unauthorised possession and ordered their ejectment and in addition the fine was imposed. It is asserted that in pursuance of the warrant of possession, respondent No. 3 was delivered possession on December 21, 1982.