SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. BAGGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent-Bagga Singh through his son Kamaljit Singh lodged a report with police against Chaman Lal Bhatia, Sukhdev Raj, Baldev Raj and Suraj Parkash sons of the said Chaman Lal Bhatia for initiating action under section 145 Cr.P.C. alleging that he is the owner of 4 marlas in Khasra No. 95/9/1 as detailed in his complaint and had also obtained stay from the Court of Mr. S.S. Hundal, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Kapurthala. He further alleged that a suit for partition is pending in the Court of Miss Manju Rani, Civil Judge, Kapurthala but in spite of the civil litigation, Sukhdev Raj, Baldev Raj, Suraj Parkash and Chaman Lal have violated the stay order, demolished the wall, and had not reconstructed the same. He has further alleged that they have spread jallis, stacked bricks, and have laid foundation so that partition could not be done properly. According to Bagga Singh, violating the orders of the court, they want to change the shape of the land and are bent upon initiating the quarrel, though he did not want to quarrel. He has also alleged that regarding the violation, a report was lodged in D.D.R. No. 22 dated 24.2.1996 at Police Station, Bholath.

(2.) THE S.H.O. Police Station, Bholath has stated in the kalendra that he made enquiries at the spot, perused the record, and on enquiry, it was found that 4 marlas plot in Khasra No. 95/9/1/1 was purchased by Munshi Ram from Som Dutt on 19.10.1977, and mutation was snactioned in favour of Munshi Ram on 28.12.1977. The S.H.O. has further stated that Munshi Ram sold this plot to Bagga Singh on 31.7.1987 and mutation was also sanctioned. Girdawri for 1988- 89 was also recorded in the name of Bagga Singh. The S.H.O. has also stated that on 13.6.1978, this very land i.e. 4 marlas in Khasra No. 95/9/1/1 was sold by Som Dutt to Chaman Lal Bhatia, but mutation was not sanctioned. According to the Kalendra, Bagga Singh took possession of the plot from Munshi Ram.

(3.) ACCORDING to the SHO, if any of the parties want to raise construction on this land, then a dispute can take place as both the parties assert their title over the same, and are in search of an opportunity to raise construction. By making these allegations, the SHO had requested the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bholath to initiate proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., summon both the parties and stop the parties from raising contruction. This Kalendra is dated 19.4.1986.