RATNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present case relates to Khasra Nos. 194,196, 197 and 198 in village Panwa Kalan. THE area is said to be 302 Bighas, Earlier proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. were taken in respect of this land between the parties by the S. D. M. Sambher Lake, who passed the order attaching the land and appointing a Receiver and also issued notices to the parties. THE revision filed against this order attaching the property was accepted as the Addl. Sessions Judge and the order under section 146 Cr. P. C. was set aside on 5. 12. 1991. A revision petition was preferred before this Court and the same was dismissed on 20. 12. 1991 by this court holding that the passing of the attachment order prior in time to the issuances of notices to the parties was illegal.

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that when the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the attachment order, the matter was again before the SDM and he by his order dated 12. 10. 1991 dropped the proceedings when actually he ought to have heard the parties in pursuance of notices issued to them under Section 145 Cr. P. C.

(3.) I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides. In my earlier order dated 20. 12. 1991 it was observed that litigation between the parties is pending before the revenue court and both the parties should approach the revenue court for purposes of any order which they want in their favour rather than raise a dispute and cause breach of peace. If, as stated now no revenue litigation is pending between the parties then it cannot be said that the parties should take the law in their hands. Still there is some other way of getting the dispute decided. The main thing to be considered is whether the order dated 7. 01. 1992 can be said to be proper in the circumstances of the case. One thing is certain which is that instead of dropping the proceedings, the SDM ought to have proceeded with the enquiry in the earlier proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. This was not done in pursuance of the earlier notice but it could be done in pursuance of the notice issued on 7. 01. 1992.