MOHAN SINGH Vs. MALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated September 2, 1971 passed in a proceeding under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) I might briefly recall the circumstances leading to this dispute. There is a parcel of agriculture land measuring 7 Bighas and 8 Biswas situate in village Khatiwas bearing Khasra No. 92. On October 7, 1969 Malia, party No. 1, made an application under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikar, saying that he was in possession of the land in dispute and he apprehended a danger of a breach of the peace. The learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order on the same day and appointed the Tehsildar as the Receiver of the property in dispute. The party No. 2 in these proceedings were Mangal Singh and his two sons Mohansingh and Sawaisingh. In the course of proceedings, it appears, Mangal Singh died and his two sons continued to contest party No. l's claim. Party No 1 filed 6 affidavits besides certain documents, which might conveniently be called "revenue records. " Party No. 2 filed eight affidavits and certain revenue records. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order dated September 26, 1970, examined the affidavits of both the parties and appraised the documentary evidence submitted by them and came to the conclusion that Malia, party No. 1 was in possession of Khasra No. 92 and the attachment was removed and the Tehsildar, Danta Ramgarh was informed. Dis-satisfied the party No. 2 preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, who by his order dated 2-9-1971 affirmed the conclusions reached by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikar on the ground that the affidavits filed by parties No. 1 and 2 were "somewhat balanced" but on the examination of the Jamabandi he found that Mangal Chand (should be Mangal Singh) was entered as the Khatadar cultivator and Malia was shown as the actual cultivator of Khasra No. 92, therefore Malia's possession stood proved. Mohan Singh and Sawai Singh having failed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, are before me seeking the revision of that order.

(3.) SO far as the present revision-application is concerned, it has no force and it is dismissed. .