SUMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition is directed against the order dated August 22, 1990, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and the consequential order dated September 18, 1990, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur.

(2.) Kana Ram and others filed an application under Section 145, Cr. P.C. against Sumer Singh and others on August 4, 1980, praying therein that in village Dugar, KHASRA Nos. 363 and 414/9, measuring 276 Bighas and 9 Biswas are situated which are AAGORE land and the non-appellants Sumer Singh and party are forcibly trying to take possessions and cultivate that land. On July 31, 1980, they collected themselves and tried to cultivate the aforesaid land. When they were asked not to do so then they refused to acced to the request of the applicant/complainant-party. It was, therefore, prayed that there is apprehension of breach of peace with respect to the learned bearing Khasra Nos. 363 and 414/9 hence proper action may be taken. The application for attachment of the land in question was also made. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, by his order dated August 3, 1980, passed a preliminary order and, also, passed an order under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. and attached the land bearing Khasra No. 263, measuring 207 Bighas 6 Biswa and Khasra No. 414/9 and appointed the Station House Officer, Police Station, Balesar as the Receiver with respect to this land. Notices to the other party were, also, issued. After the service of the notices on the other party Sumer Singh and others appear before the Executive Magistrate and moved an application under Section 146 Cr. P.C. on September 18, 1981, and prayed that the land in question is in their possession. It was alleged in that application that an ex-parte order was obtained by the applicant while there is no apprehension of breach of peace and the land is not the AAGORE land and the same belongs to them and they are suffering unnecessarily the losses on account of the attachment of the land in dispute and they have been deprived of their right to cultivate the land. On this application, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by his order dated October 22, 1981, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, ordered for withdrawal of the attachment order. Dissatisfied with this order, dated October 22, 1981, ordering for the withdrawal of the attachment, Kana Ram and other preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which was ultimately decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. The revision-petition filed by Kana Ram and others was allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate thereafter, by his order dated October 31, 1984, again, allowed the application dated September 21, 1981 filed by Sumer Singh and party by holding that as the attachment was already withdrawn and the land is in possession of Sumer Singh and party, therefore, there is no question of any apprehension of breach of peace and for re-attachment of the property. Dissatisfied with this order dated October 31, 1984, withdrawing the attachment order, Kana Ram and party preferred a revision-petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which was ultimately decided by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act-cum-additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his order dated August 22, 1990. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, allowed the revision petition filed by Kana Ram and other, set-aside the order dated October 31, 1984 and directed the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to re-attach the property in dispute and to proceed in accordance with law. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in consequence of the order dated August 22, 1990, by his order dated September 18, 1990, attached the property in dispute. It is against these orders that the present revision-petition has been filed by Sumar Singh and others.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.