CHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh dt. 18.12.91 whereby he has upheld the order of learned S.D.M. Hanumangarh dt. 1.11.91 declaring possession of the respondent no. 2 over disputed 8-1/2 bighas of land in chak No. 29 S.S.W.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Billore Singh (Party No. 1), Amar Singh and Joginder Singh are three brothers. Joginder Singh had 12-1/2 bighas of land in Chak No. 29 S.S.W. It has been alleged that the other two brothers had their separate lands and they did not have any right or interest of possession in the land. It has been alleged that Joginder Singh sold five bighas of land in Chak No. 29 S.S.W. stone No. 98/300 killas No. 16 to 20 to the petitioners (Party No. 2) by a registered sale deed dt. 8.11.76 and sold killas No. 21 to 25 to one Baldev Singh by a registered sale deed on 8.11.76 and handed over the possession to the purchasers. Joginder Singh by another agreement dt. 11.10.76 agreed to sale 2-1/2 bighas of land killas No. 13/10,14/1 and 15/1 to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was in possession of 12-1/2 bighas of land since 1976. The respondent No. 2 instituted a suit No. 21/77 u/s. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in respect of the lands sold and agreed to be sold by Joginder Singh to the petitioner but the Asstt. Collector, Hanumangarh dismissed the suit on 13.7.84. An appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner on 13.3.86. It has been further alleged that the respondent No. 2 filed another revenue suit u/s. 53 and 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act along with an application for injunction application on 7.10.86. The aggrieved respondent no. 2 filed an appeal but that too was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner on 27.7.90. An application u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner (Party No. 2). The learned S.D.M. Hanumangarh found that there was imminent likelihood of breach of peace as petitioner's father was murdered and he has been involved in other cases, and ordered attachment of the disputed land and appointed Tehsildar as receiver vide his order dt. 5.11.1988. Respondent No. 2 moved an application for dropping the proceedings u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. The learned S.D.M. held that it is not proper to drop the proceedings, however, allowed the respondent No. 2 to reap the crop from 8-1/2 bighas and the petitioner from 1-1/2 bighas of land vide its order dt. 1.5.89. On revision, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, vide his order allowed the same on 31.5.89. It is also alleged that after taking evidence, the learned S.D.M. declared possession of the petitioner over ten bighas of land on 16.7.91 but on revision by the respondent No. 2 (party No. 1) the matter was remanded back on 24.7.91 to the learned S.D.M. On remand, the learned S.D.M., declared the possession of the respondent No. 2 over 8-1/2 bighas of land and of the petitioner on 1-1/2 bighas of land. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order of learned S.D.M. dt. 1.11.91 was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh on 18.12.91. Hence, this misc. petition.

(3.) Mr. Kharlia, learned counsel for the non-petkioner has raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on Ranjan Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, Iqbal Singh Vs. State, 1991 CrLR 588, Mani Ram Vs. Mahaveer Prasad, 1991 CrLR 145 and Gigaram & 10 others Vs. State of Raj., 1991 CrLR 708. He has further submitted that even on merits no interference is called for.