MODA RAM Vs. PRITHVI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Moda Ram and others against the orders of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated 24. 1. 84 and 12. 3. 84 in proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. By the order dated 24. 1. 84, the learned Magistrate, drew a preliminary order as also attached the property u/s 146 Cr. P. C. By the later order dated 12. 3 84, the learned Magistrate refused to vacate the attachment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the non-petitioner Shri Prithvi Raj filed an application under sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, alleging that in village Jaliwara Khurd, there existed a common chowk, situated in front of the houses of the applicant as well as the non-applicants, who are petitioners in this revision, which was being used by all the villagers for the purposes like marriages, deaths etc but now the non-applicants i. e. the present petitioners were claiming this land to be their exclusive property and are trying to raise a wall around it and are using this chowk as a kiln. THE applicant, therefore, prayed that proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. should be taken against the non-applicants and the property should be attached. It was on this application that the learned Magistrate after seeing the police report, passed the order dated 24. 1. 84. THE present petitioners thereafter appeared and filed their objections or reply claiming that the provisions of section 145 Cr. P. C. were not applicable in the present case as according to the applicant's own showing the dispute was not with regard to possession of the land but with regard to its user. THEy also alleged that there was no apprehension of breach of peace nor was there any such imminent danger and that the non-applicants had been in peaceful possession of this property since long. It was also mentioned that a revenue suit had already been filed in respect of this land and, therefore, also the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. were uncalled for. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate refused to vacate his earlier order, Hence this revision.

(3.) THE revision is, therefore, accepted and the orders of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated 24-1-84 and 12-3-84 are set aside. .