JORA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Crl. Revn. Nos. 453 and 454 of 1996 as the question of facts and law involved in both the petitions is the same. Petitioner No. 1, respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 of Crl. Revn. No. 453 of 1996 are brothers; petitioner No. 2 of Crl. Revn. No. 453 of 1996 is wife of petitioner No. 1; respondent No. 5 is wife of respondent No. 4; respondent No. 7 is wife of respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 9 is wife of respondent No. 8. Respondent No. 3 is alleged to be the power-of-attorney holder. The dispute is regarding lands situated in villages Lakha and Manuke. The S. H. O. of Police Station, Jagraon sent a Kalendra Annexure P-1 to thelearned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (in short S. D. M. ) , Jagraon who by his order dated 20-10-1994 appointed Tehsildar Sh. Ajay Sood as a Receiver and directed him to get the crop of the land in dispute harvested and sale-proceeds of Rs. 70,000/- were deposited by the Receiver in the Government treasury. By subsequent order dated 21-11-1994, the S. D. M. passed an order which when translated reads as under :"4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both sides and have thoroughly examined the record produced in the case file. It has been found from perusal of the record that now there exists dispute in respect of land of 36 Killa only, the detail of which has also been given by the first party in its written statement and the party No. 1 is in possession as tenant over the land in dispute and as per their written statement, they are not concerned with the rest of the land. The first party has also produced some documentary evidence in this respect, which are essentially required to be proved. Their veracity cannot be established without producing witness. At present, there is a great tension between the parties in regard to possession of the land in dispute, and the parties could clash any time, Agreeing with the rulings 1976 PLR 803 : 1990 CLJ 389 and 1992 CLJ 34 cited by the first party, I attach under Section 145 (1) of the Cr. P. C. land measuring 29 killa 2 kanal 6 marla, comprised in Khasra Nos. 37/25/2, 46/5/2, 47/1, 2/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7, 8, 6/2, 6/3, 5/2, 13/1, 13/2, 13/3, 14/1, 14/2, 14/3, 16/2, 17/2/1, 17/1, 48/1/2, 1/1, 3/1, 9/2, 10,47/25/1, 18/1, 18/2/1, 74/24, 25, 72/21, 22, 23/2, 73/1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/1/1, 12/1/2, 12/2/1, 74/4, 5, 6/1 situate in village Lakha and land measuring 55 kanal 17 marla, comprised in Khasra Nos. 226/15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25/1, 227/11/1, 20/2, situate in village Menuke, on which the first party has laid claim and the proceedings u/s. 145, Cr. P. C. are ordered to continue. The first party (Darshan Singh etc. ) is not concerned with the remaining land because as per their written statement, they are tenants over the said land. The first party is ordered to produce on 24-11-1994 witness in support of the documentary evidence produced by it. The Tehsildar, Jagraon has already by my order dated 20-10-1994 been appointed as Receiver in this case under S. 146, Cr. P. C. who may be addressed separately to give on lease the said disputed land. Sd/sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon 21-11-1994. "

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a Crl. Revn. Petition Nos. 8/9 of 17-2-95/22-3-1996 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 11-5-1996 allowed the revision petition. The order part of the judgment is as under :"in view of the discussion made above, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 21-11-1994 passed by the S. D. M. regarding the attachment of the land and continuation of the proceedings under Ss. 145, Cr. P. C. is ordered to be set aside. The proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. are ordered to be dropped. The possession of the land is ordered to be restored to the revision petitioner No. 2. The sale proceeds deposited in the Treasury by the Tehsildar after harvesting the crop, is ordered to be paid to the revision petitioner No. 2 who had sown that crop in the land. Trial Court record be returned. File of this Court be consigned. "

(3.) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.