AB AHAD MIR Vs. SYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the application of one Abdul Ahad Mir, Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate, Bandipora, took cognisance of proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C in respect of dispute likely to cause breach of peace over 8 kanals and 17 marlas of land bearing Khasra No. 1484, on 10 -6 -1992. Alongside on an application, considering the matter as emergent, the magistrate attached the land, the subject of the dispute and issued necessary directions thereto, to the S. H. O Police Station, Bandipora.

(2.) PURSUANT to the notice, one of the non -applicants, namely Syed Begum, also appeared before the Magistrate on 11 -7 -1992. The Magistrate after noting that as per verbal statement of Syeda Begum the disputed land belonged to the migrants, cancelled the attachment order after observing that he had no jurisdiction. This order of 11 -7 -1992 is impugned in this revision.

(3.) THE order is challenged on the ground that once the Magistrate took cognisance and issued initial order under section 145(1) Cr. P. C and attachment order under third proviso to Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. the Magistrate had no jurisdiction either to limit the operation of the attachment order to one date or to withdraw the attachment pending the main proceedings without determining the question of possession. The Agrarian Reforms Act has nothing to do with attachment under section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. The observation of the Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate that he had no jurisdiction is wholly misplaced. The Magistrate could not have terminated the proceedings under third proviso to Section 145(4) Cr. P.C. midway without complying with the provisions of law. It was only if the Magistrate could come to the conclusion that no dispute existed, that the Magistrate could cancel the order and drop the proceedings.