GULAM FARID Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the petition.

(2.) According to the averments made in this petition non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 filed a suit against the petitioners for declaration regarding the quarry No. 204 and 203/1 situated in Gunawati range. The petitioners case is that those land and quarries were in possession of the petitioners. In the plaint mentioned above a prayer was made for the issue of permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant would not interfere in the quarry No. 204 and 204/1 and eastern side for which an application for allotment has been made. A copy of the plaint has been annexed with this petition. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 was also filed praying for ad interim injunction against the defendants. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate Parbatsar after hearing both the parties refused to grant ad interim injunction. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 1st May, 1993, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar an appeal was filed before learned District and Sessions Judge, Merta on 11th May, 1993 along with a stay application moved under Section 151, Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Merta refused to grant the stay order. The non-petitioner's No. 2 and 3 thereafter filed an application under Sections 141 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Makarana in which they stated that they were in possession of quarries No. 204 and 204/1, and that the non-applicants wanted to encroach upon the aforesaid quarries. The fact that injunction application filed by the non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had been rejected by the trial Court as well as by the District and Sessions Judge, Merta was concealed. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 the learned Additional Collector and Magistrate, Makarana attached the quarries No. 204 and 004/1 and appointed the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Makarana as the Receiver of the quarries. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Collector and Magistrate, Makarana the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) I have perused the certified copy of the application filed by non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Additional Collector and Magistrate, Makarana and also perused the affidavits filed with the application and the copy of the application moved under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Additional Collector and Magistrate, Makarana. In their application dated 25th June, 1993 non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 alleged that they were in possession of quarries No. 204 and 204/1 situated in village Gunawati under a licence which was valid upto 30th June, 1996 and that the non-applicant had no right or possession over the above quarries and they wanted to commit tres-psss on the quarries. It was further stated in Para 3 of the application that the applicants had filed a civil suit in which direction to maintain status quo was given by the Court but on 1st May, 1993 that direction was set aside. There was clear averment in the application that Gulam Farid and others wanted to unlawfully possess the quarries in dispute and that they threw stones and attempted to commit tres-pass and also committed theft of drilling machine and were bent upon taking possession of quarries by force and that the situation was of serious one and there was apprehension of breach of peace at any time. The application filed by the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 was supported by the affidavits of Haji Gulam Rasool and Anwar Ahmed. The application under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code also contains similar facts. The learned Additional Collector and Magistrate, Makarana after perusing the applications, affidavits and after hearing the arguments passed by this order dated 25th June, 1993, in which he observed that after hearing the applicants and perusing the record he was satisfied that there was a dispute between the parties in respect of the quarries and that on account of that dispute there was apprehension of breach of peace. He, therefore, directed that quarries No. 204 and 204/1 be attached and he appointed Station House Officer of Police Station, Makarana to act as Receiver of the quarries. It appears that non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 did not bring to the notice of the learned Additional Collector and Magistrate, Makarana the orders passed by the trial Court as well as by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Merta on the applications moved for grant of temporary injunction.