AMILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dt. 17.10.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Anoopgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar in revision, whereby, the revisional Court has quashed the order dt. 13.08.2004 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gharsana in Case No. 2/2002 and the direction issued by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gharsana to deliver the possession of the property in question to the petitioner has been reversed and the learned revisional Court directed that the possession of the property in question be handed over to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the disputed land in question is situated at Khasra Nos. 170/64, 171/57 and 191/1 of Chak 5 KD(A) at Gharsana, Distt. Sri Ganganagar. Learned counsel submits that the land was originally allotted to Maghi Bai, who had given the same to the petitioner Amilal for cultivation about 35 years back. For the said period of 35 years, the petitioner Amilal was in continuous cultivator possession over the land question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 namely Devi Lal and Sahab Ram were having evil eye on the said land and in order to take illegal possession over the Land in question, they procured a power of attorney from Maghi Bai and forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from the land in question on 05.05.1999. The petitioner filed an FIR being FIR No. 115/1999 on 06.05.1999 at the police Station Rawla against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and certain other persons. The police filed a charge -sheet against few of the accused named in the FIR who pleaded guilty before the trial Court and, accordingly, they were convicted and were released on probation. The SHO, Police Station Rawla initiated proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. through a complaint filed in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gharsana on 06.05.1999. Thereafter, the land was directed to be attached and the Receiver took the possession of the property in question. The petitioner challenged the order of appointment of Receiver and the learned revisional Court accepted the petitioner's revision and quashed the order of appointment of Receiver and directed the Receiver to hand over the possession of the property in question to the petitioner. Thereafter, the said order was challenged before this Court by way of a revision and the matter was remanded back to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who further remanded the matter back to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for fresh consideration. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate thereafter directed possession of the land in question to be handed over to Devi Lal and Sahab Ram by over dt. 01.09.2001. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of another revision and the learned revisional Court again remanded the matter back to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate took the affidavits and claims of the party and ultimately by order dt. 13.08.2004, appointment of Receiver as well as the proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. were dropped and the possession of the land in question was directed to be handed over to the petitioner.

(2.) THE respondents Nos. 2 and 3 preferred a revision and the learned revisional Court by order dt. 17.07.2007 quashed the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and directed the possession of the property in question to be given to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) PER contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and contend that the learned revisional Court has rightly held that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gharsana has misread the evidence whilst considering the question of possession over the land in question, Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the possession of the land in question had been handed over to Sahab Ram by the Khatedar Maghi Devi in the year 1998 and, therefore, he was entitled to receive the possession of the property in question and none else.