MOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 read with section 401 Cr.RC. has been filed against the order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/2008 whereby the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh dated 28.03.2008 has been set aside appointing receiver on the property in dispute.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts, for the disposal of this revision petition, are that the SHO, Police Station, Ramgarh District-Alwar filed complaint on 13.12.2007 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh, District Alwar under section 145 Crimial P.C. on behalf of Mool Chand son of Jaysiram Jangid stating therein that the land in dispute bearing khasra No. 445 measuring 0.53 hectares situated in village Khoh Tehsil Ramgarh and the complainants's son Pratap is having the half of the disputed land in his name. The respondent No. 2 along with others are not permitting the complainant's son to enter into the field and are trying to dispossess them. On 21.10.2007 when complainant's son went on his field alongwith labourers to take the crops, the respondents did not permit them and started quarreling with them and threatened to kill, therefore, there is likelihood of breach of peace and a order was required to be passed for the appointment of receiver. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the respondent and the respondent filed reply to that notice and submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as the same was not filed by the complainant Mool Chand himself but was filed by one Pratap Singh who is in fact not the son of Mool Chand. It was also stated that civil disputes were pending between the parties and there was no likelihood of any breach of peace. It was also stated in the reply that interim order passed by this court is also in existence in relation to the disputed land because alleged probate is under challenge. The learned SDM after hearing both the sides and considering the evidence led before it passed an order under section 146(1) Cr.RC. after recording his satisfaction that there exist a dispute between the parties in relation to the land in dispute and there is apprehension of breach of peace and conditions are such requiring immediate action. An order dated 28.03.2008 appointing receiver was passed. The order impugned was challenged by the respondent in a revision petition which came to be decided on 02.06.2008 by the learned revisional Court. The learned revisional court found that no such emergency had existed for appointment of receiver. The learned revisional court further found that no criminal litigation was pending between the parties to draw conclusion that it was essential to appoint a receiver as there was no likelihood of breach of peace. This order passed in revision has been challenged before this Court.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that half of the disputed land undoubtedly is in the possession of the petitioner and the respondent cannot be permitted to stop him from entering into the field. It is also contended that the primary satisfaction recorded for breach of peace by the learned SDM is based on the enquiry conducted by the SHO required no interference by the learned revisional court, therefore, the revisional court's order is required to be set aside and the order passed by the learned SDM requires to be restored.