BANNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. has arisen out of a criminal complaint moved by the SHO Lamba Hari Singh, Tonk on 11/7/1989 under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Collector and Magistrate, Malpura, District Tonk (hereinafter referred to as "ACM"). It was pleaded in the present complaint, that a dispute has erupted between party No. 1 and party No. 2 in respect of claiming possession over agricultural lands in question situated at Village Sitarampura, Kantoli, Tehsil Malpura District Tonk, due to which there is possibility of breach of peace and tranquility. On receiving the complaint, after prima facie satisfaction about the likelihood to cause a breach of peace exists, due to dispute between two parties in respect of claiming rival and respective possession over lands in question, learned ACM passed preliminary order dtd. 11/7/1989 under Sec. 146(1) Cr.P.C., appointing Naib Tehsildar, Malpura as receiver to take lands in question in his possession. Both parties submitted their respective claims and reply, to establish their cultivation and possession over lands in question on 11/7/1989 and prior thereto. Learned ACM also allowed both parties to produce their respective evidence oral and documentary, in support of their respective claims to prove possession. Both parties adduced their evidence and thereafter having heard both parties and after appreciation of evidence and material came on record, learned ACM passed the final judgment dtd. 17/10/1997 whereby and whereunder possession of lands in question as on 11/7/1989, the date on which receiver Naib Tehsildar, Malpura took lands in question in his possession and two months prior thereto was declared to be of party No. 1 (Jujha Meena, Onkar Meena etc.-present petitioners) and by the same judgment simultaneously the party No. 2 (Harjinath Jogi and Bhuranath Jogi-non petitioners herein) was restrained not to hinder/ obstruct in peaceful use and possession of lands in question by party No. 1.

(2.) It is worthy to take note that after passing the final decision dtd. 17/10/1997, by the Court of ACM, in compliance thereof, receiver handed over the physical possession of lands in question to party No. 1-petitioners herein on 22/10/1997. This factual aspect of delivering the physical possession of land in question by the Court receiver to the party No. 1-petitioners has not been disputed by non-petitioners. It is an undisputed fact that since 22/10/1997, party No. 1-petitioners has been in continuous possession of lands in question.

(3.) It appears that the judgment dtd. 17/10/1997, though implemented, yet was put to challenge by the party No. 2-non-petitioners by way of filing criminal revision petition No. 37/1997 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura. The Revisional Court allowed the revision petition vide order dtd. 20/2/1999 and after quashing the judgment dtd. 17/10/1997, remanded the matter to the Court of ACM, Malpura to decide the same afresh. Against the order of Revisional Court dtd. 20/2/1999, party No. 1-petitioners preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court, invoking powers under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. The High Court decided the revision petition vide order dtd. 28/7/1999 with observations that since matter has been remanded to the Court of ACM, therefore, the Court of ACM shall consider and decide the matter afresh, without being influenced by any findings/observations recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura in its order dtd. 20/2/1999 and thus, the order of remand was upheld. Thereafter, the matter has been decided afresh by the ACM on merits vide judgment dtd. 3/5/2000. This time also, party No. 1- petitioners succeeded in establishing their possession over lands in question and the issue of possession has been decided in their favour, with observations that possession had already been handed over to party No. 1-petitioners by the Court of receiver way back on 22/10/1997. The party No. 2-non-petitioners challenged the judgment dtd. 3/5/2000 by filing the criminal revision petition No. 21/2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dtd. 18/10/2002 allowed the revision petition and set aside the judgment dtd. 3/5/2000. The final order of Revisional Court dtd. 18/10/2002, is under challenge in the instant criminal revision petition at the instance of party No. 1-petitioners, invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C.