HAZARI Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . First respondent-Jagdish, who is the brother of Hazari, petitioner herein, presented an application under Section 145 read with Section 146 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, Narnaul (File No. 18 Cr.P.C.1996) on 26.3.1996. On the same day, the Executive Magistrate, Narnaul passed an order (annexure P-3) that it was made to appear that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace existed between them concerning an extent of 141 kanals and 3 marlas of land situated in village Bamanwas Nau (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute), that he was yet to decide as to which of the parties was in possession, that he was satisfied that there was imminent danger of breach of peace and, therefore, he was ordering attachment of the land in dispute with the standing crops. He also authorised the Naib Tehsildar (M), Narnaul to attach the land with the crops and keep the same in his possession until the rights of parties and the claim of possession are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(2.) THE Executive Magistrate, Narnaul also passed a similar order on 21.5.1996 authorising the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian) instead of the Naib Tehsildar (M) to effect the attachment and keep the property in his possession, as directed earlier (annexure P-4). Subsequently, on 29.5.1996, vide annexure P-5, the Executive Magistrate passed an order confirming earlier orders passed by him and directing that the land in dispute shall remain attached till final decision by the Civil Court and that the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian) who has already been appointed as Receiver, should lease out the land.

(3.) THE Executive Magistrate found that the agreement for sale is not registered and merely on the basis of the agreement for sale, the present petitioner cannot become the owner in possession of the land, that there is no sale deed in his favour, and that it is clear that the 1st respondent and the petitioner herein are joint owners in possession of the land in dispute to the extent of half share each. He also held that there is apprehension of breach of peace between the parties regarding the land in dispute and, therefore, the land in dispute shall remain attached till the final decision of the Civil Court, and the Naib Tehsildar (Receiver) should lease out the property. This order was passed on 29.5.1996 (annexure P-5). As against this, the present petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 46 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, which was dismissed by him as not maintainable on the ground that the order of attachment passed under Section 146(1) of the Code was only an interlocutory order.