BADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.9.1997 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hodal vide which a Receiver has been appointed with a further prayer to stay further proceedings.

(2.) CASE of the petitioners is that they are Ghair Marusi tenants under one Smt. Kalawati in respect of land bearing Rect. No. 31, Killa No. 7/2(4-17), 14(7-11), 17/1(3-17) total measuring 16 Kanals 5 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Marruli Tehsil Hodal District Faridabad. It is further alleged that Hira respondent No. 2 filed a suit for declaration that he had inherited the suit land being the only legal heir of one Shri Ramji Lal. He also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from taking illegal and forcible possession of the suit land. Petitioners herein also filed a suit of the same nature against Hira. During the course of the proceedings of the said suit, a compromise was effected between the parties in the presence of sons of Hira respondent No. 2. A compromise decree was passed on 29.11.1996 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palwal. Copies of the relevant documents are annexed as Annexure P1 to P3 with the petition. As per the said decree dated 23.11.1996, land measuring 13 kanals 15 marlas fell to the share of the petitioners and the remaining land fell to the share of the respondents. The entries to this effect were duly effected in the Rapat Roznamcha vide Entry No. 147 dated 17.12.1996. It is also the case of the petitioners that on the strength of the compromise they are in cultivating possession of the land. On the complaint under section 145 Cr.P.C. made by Hira, Calendra Annexure P4 was prepared by SI/SHO Police Station Hodal and was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hodal on which the impugned order was passed.

(3.) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 2 with ulterior motive got a calendra prepared under section 145 Cr.P.C. from the local police. That calendra was submitted to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hodal by the SHO Police Station Hodal without affording an opportunity to associate them in the enquiry before preparing the Calendra. It was further argued that the Sub Divisional Magistrate without going through the revenue record and the judgments rendered by the Court issued the order under Section 146 Cr.P.C. effecting the attachment of the land in question and gave the same on Supardari to Tehsildar Hodal. It was contended that the learned SDM Hodal, was not justified in passing the said order without complying with the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel Tehsildar Hodal has been wrongly appointed as Receiver. Learned counsel for the respondents as also the learned Assistant Advocate General have endeavoured to refute the contentions. A submission was made that the subject of dispute has rightly been attached and no fault can be found with the appointment of Receiver. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the order appointing the Receiver is an interlocutory order and cannot be assailed in the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.