CHETU ETC. Vs. HARI RAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these criminal revision petitions purporting to be under Ss. 397/401 Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 482 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against similar orders passed in four revision petitions filed by Shri Chetu against the Respondents before the learned Sessions Judge, who dismissed all the petitions for default of the Petitioners to appear.

(2.) From the record it is revealed that the present Petitioners Chetu and others were the owners of the land regarding which a dispute, according to the present Respondents, who moved the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Mandi under the provisions of Sec. 145 likely to cause a breach of peace, existed. The Respondents before this Court were all the tenants. On 17 -5 -1964 Chetu and others owners filed suits against the present Respondents in all the four petitions in the Court of the Additional Sub -Judge, Mandi for possession of the land. In those suits compromises were effected, whereby the landowners Plaintiffs agreed to grant the ownership rights in respect of one half share in the land to the Defendants, whereas the Defendants also agreed to part with one half of the possession in the land which was in their possession to the landowner Plaintiffs. Thereafter it appears that decrees in terms of those compromise were passed on the 9th October, 1968, for possession of one half of the lands in the suits against the Defendants and the present Respondents. Thereafter it appears that executions for delivery of joint possession were taken out by the decree -holders i.e. the present Petitioners and the Additional Sub -Judge passed orders for consignment of the execution petitions as being fully satisfied on the ground that the possession had been delivered in terms of the decrees.

(3.) Hari Singh and others Respondents in all these revision petitions, moved applications on 30 -6 -73 under the provisions of Sec. 145 Code of Civil Procedure before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Sadar Mandi, alleging therein that they were in actual physical possession of the land as non -occupancy tenants in respect of the lands mentioned therein and it was further averred by each of them in respect of their respective petitions "that the Applicant is non -occupancy tenant and in actual physical possession of this land since long (though since recently have acquired a share of proprietary rights also in the above said land)". It had also been further stated that the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Chetu was one of the owners of the land in dispute and that the Applicant was a non -occupancy tenant and in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. In para 4 of each of the petition, it was stated that with the ulterior motive the Respondents wanted to dispossess the Applicants from the land in dispute forcibly. The Respondents are not in possession of the land in dispute. They have no right to interfere with the possession of the Applicants and then in para 5 they gave four dates on which the Respondents were alleged to have gone on the land with sharp edged weapons and threatened the Applicants with dire consequences in case they cultivated the land and did not hand over the possession and it was in these circumstances that they moved the applications.