UDMI RAM Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition u/s 397, read with S.401 Cr. P.C. has been filed against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dt. 26-9-87, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the revision petition filed against the order of the learned S.D.M., Rajgarh, dt. 26-5-87 and has held that no proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. ought to have been initiated and, therefore, he has ordered that these proceedings be dropped.

(2.) Detailed arguments were advanced at the admission stage. 2A. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision, briefly stated are that Khasra Nos. 9 and 162, situated in village Mithi, which earlier formed part of Khasra No. 28, were recorded as Doli of Mandir Shri Thakurji in Samvat year 2018 to Samwat year 2021. At that time Shri Jaggu Ram was the Poojari of the temple and it transpires that he got this khasra No. 28 recorded in his khatedari. Jaggu Ram was later removed from the post of Poojari and one Shiv Ram was appointed as Poojari of the temple. Shri Shivram tried to cultivate these fields as Poojari of the temple but that attempt was resisted by Jaggu Ram and his son Dharam Singh. Therefore, he initiated proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. before the learned SDM, Rajgarh, in the year 1975, and those proceedings were dropped later. It is alleged that Shivram in his capacity as Poojari of Temple, Shri Thakurjee again filed proceedings u/s 145 on 29-10-76. The learned SDM vide his order dt. 1-11-76 attached the disputed property but later after Jaggu Ram put in his appearance and filed his reply, those proceedings were dropped and it was ordered that the possession of the land attached, should be delivered back to Jaggu Ram. A revision was filed against this order, before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, but that was also dismissed on 13-4-83. Thus in a dispute between these very parties the proceedings terminated in favour of Jaggu Ram and his sons. Later on it is alleged that one Hazari filed a revenue suit on behalf of Temple Shri Thakurjee before the SDM, Rajgarh claiming that the land should be recorded in the Khatedari of the temple and that suit was dismissed by the learned SDM on 13-4-83. An appeal against this decision was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, and that appeal was accepted by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its judgement dt. 8-12-86 and it was ordered that this disputed land be recorded in the khatedari of the Mandir Shri Thakurjee. Jaggu Ram filed a revision before the Revenue Board against the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, and the Revenue Board, during the pendency of the revision, passed an order that status as it existed regarding possession of the land should be maintained. prior to that Revenue Appellate Authority also stayed the execution of its own judgement up to 9-12-86. During the pendency of these proceedings before the Revenue Board Shri, Hazari filed an application u/Ss. 145 and 146 in the court of S.D.M. Rajgarh; on 15-5-87 and that complaint was enquired into by the S.H.O. Rajgarh and he filed his investigation report before the court on 23-5-87, on the basis of which a preliminary order u/s. 145(1) Cr. P.C. was drawn by the S.D.M., Rajgarh, on 26-5-87 and simultaneously the disputed land was ordered to be attached u/s 146(1) Cr. P.C. It was against this order that this revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) While relying on certain authorities of the Supreme Court and this Court the learned Sessions Judge, Churu held that when a dispute is pending about the same property, before a revenue Court, in which an injunction of status quo has been granted by the Revenue Board, parallel proceedings u/s 145, read with S.146 Cr. P.C. cannot be instituted and, therefore, he passed the order under revision, as aforesaid and hence, Hazari, Udmi Ram, etc. have filed this revision petition before this Court.