GAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. SURJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A recommendation has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal that the revision petition preferred by Gappa and others against whom an order was passed by the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, on 30th December, 1957, under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, be accepted and the impugned order of the Executive Magistrate quashed.

(2.) FACTS are not in controversy so far as the present revision petition is concerned Surjan, a Harijan, resident of village Staudi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Saddar, Karnal, made an application under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, on 6th October, 1965 on the allegation that he was in possession of a certain vacant plot of land lying in front of his house for more than thirty years and the same was being used for tethering his cattle and dumping rubbish. It was stated by him that he had raised some construction on that plot but Gappa and others now Petitioners wanted to forcibly dispossess him from that plot of land as a result whereof there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The Sub Divisional Magistrate to whom the application was put up on 7th October, 1905, passed a very brief and criptic order in the following terms: -

(3.) THE Subordinate Judge, Karnal, recorded the evidence led by both the parties and decided the question of possession in favour of Surjan. It was held by him that Surjan had been in possession of the suit land on the relevant date and two months prior to that. The Sub Divisional Magistrate on receipt of the decision of the Subordinate Judge simply agreed with the same and declared the Petitioner to be in possession of the site in dispute on 7th October, 1965, and two months before that. He directed that Surjan would remain in possession until evicted in due course of law. The Sub Divisional Magistrate neither in his preliminary order of 7th October, 1965, nor in the subsequent order passed on 30th December, 1967, ever stated that he was satisfied on the information received by him that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed, concerning the site in dispute. A revision petition filed by the opposite party, namely, Gappa and others, has, thus, been recommended by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not give any specific finding regarding the question of breach of the peace and, therefore, his order could not be maintained.