MEGH DASS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 6. 11. 86 of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu passed in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 1986, whereby, he maintained the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar dated 31. 10. 86.

(2.) THE case has long charactered history and has arisen in the circumstances that one Arjundas Pujari filed a suit as far back as the year 1962. That suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector, Churu on 24. 9. 68. An appeal was preferred by the present petitioner Meghdass and the same was dismissed on 31. 8. 77 and second appeal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 21. 2. 85. In execution of the decree, filed by the decree-holder, warrant of possession was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 8. 5. 85 and in execution of warrant of possession, the judgment-debtor Meghdass was dispossessed on 23. 5. 85 from the land comprised of khasra No. 162, 168 and 169 as stated in the warrant of possession Khasra No. 168 consisted of 54 Bighas 4 Biswas from which the judgment-debtor was dispossessed. It was recorded in the report on the warrant of possession, that at the time of delivery of possession no 'dhani' or 'jhupa' for residential purposes was found at the spot and the judgment-debtor was not present. Meghdass having been dispossessed in execution of the decree through a warrant of possession again filed a revenue suit on 3. 6 85. Initially, on 5. 6. 85, status quo was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed and stay order was vacated on 4. 10. 85. According to the decree-holder Shivratan, Meghdass committed criminal trespass over the field on 12. 6. 85. After coming into possession of the land in question, according to the decree-holder Shivratan, two stone slabs were put as identifying marks over the land and seven stone slabs were placed for construction purposes and two carts of soil were also unloaded over there for the purpose of making construction of 'dhani'. He found that the stone slabs have been stolen. A report of the occurr-ance was lodged by him on 17. 6 85 regarding the occurrence alleged to have taken place in the evening of 12 6. 85. On his report, case under sec. 447, 427 and 379, I. P. C. was registered. During investigation, the site plan was prepared on 18. 6. 85 and it was mentioned in the site-plan and site-notes that there exists 'jhupa' marked 'g' in khasra No. 168. THE police, during investigation, took into custody the land in question comprised of khasra Nos. 162, 168 and 169 vide memo dated 1. 9. 85. THE memo dated 1. 9. 85. nowhere records that there exists any 'dhani'. It was mentioned in the memo that Shivratan, Girdhar Gopal and Ranjeet Kumar r/o Sardar Shahar were found present in the aforesaid three khasras and they were in possession of these khasras and these khasras were under their cultivation. Applications under Sec. 451, Cr. P. C. were presented both by the complainant as well as by the accused petitioner Meghdass. Learned Magistrate passed an order dated 19-10-85 whereby the land in question was ordered to be delivered to the complainant Shivratan on 'supurdginama'. Against that order, an application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. was filed by Meghdass in this Court and this court by its order dated August 25,1986 dismissed that petition. It was observed by this Court that there was full justification in passing of the order in the back-ground of the case and particularly, the documents produced along with the charge-sheet showing delivery of possession to the complainant in execution of the decree. It was also observed that under Sec. 451, Cr. P. C. the interim order was passed for the proper custody of the land in question till the conclusion of the trial and that it is for the Court to manage the property during this period, that is why, the possession of the land has been delivered on execution of 'supurdginama' and 'jamanatnama'. This Court also observed that when the property is in the custody of the court and only an arrangement has been made for its proper management, it shall be treated on behalf of the court and the person to whom the property is given, is under an obligation to render the account, if he cultivates the land on behalf of the court and the petitioner was directed to approach the court-below in this connection, if so advised.