JORAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision-petition is directed against judgement dated 27th July, 1976 of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and arises out of the proceeding under Sec. 245 Cr. P. C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code).

(2.) Khasra No. 621 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa in village Todi P. S. Gudha Godji was in possession of the petitioner Jorawar Singh for the last many years. This land was having boundary wall and few wooden cabins as well as residential house belonging to the petitioner Jorawar Singh. Some how ignoring the rights of Jorawar Singh the land in dispute was allot ed to Patasa non-petitioner No.1, for cultivation on 17th June, 1970. The petitioner challenged that allotment and succeeded in the Revenue Appellate Authority who set aside the allotment in favour of Patasa on 18th June, 1973. It was held by the Revenue Appellate Authority that as the petitioner was in the possession of the land in dispute, the land was not unoccupied and should not be allotted to Patasa under the Rules, A revision-petition was filed by Patasa against the judgement of Learned Revenue Appellate Authority in the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and the learned Chairmau of the Board of Revenue vide his judgement dated the 8th Aug., 1968, copy of which has been filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in this court, dismissed the revision. It will be observed that after the decision in favour of the petitioner was made by the Revenue Appellate Authority the mutation of the land in dispute was also made in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Some-how it appears that on April 25, 1974 Patasa moved an application under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. in the Court of learned S. D. M., Nawalgarh and the learned S.D.M., Nawalgarh being satisfied that there is likelihood of the breach of peace of the land in dispute made a preliminary Order under sub sec. (1) of a Sec. 145 Crimial P.C. on April 29, 1974 and further being satisfied that the case was one of emergency attached the subject of the dispute by making an ex parae attachment Order on the same day. The attachment was effected on April 30, 1974. The petitioner appealed in the Court of the learned S.D.M. and submitted an application under sub sec. (5) of sec, 145 of Code that the land had always been in his peaceful possession and there never had been apprehension of the breach of peace and there was no justification for making an ex parte Order of attachment. The learned Magistrate, somehow on the material then available dismissed that application. The petitioner went in revision to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhnujhunu who accepted the same and directed the learned Magistrate to take evidence of the parties and then to decide the question of possession. No evidence was produced by Paiasa inspite of several adjournment and ultimately his evidence was closed by the learned S.D,M. on May 26, 1975. Again Patasa went in revision before the learned Session Judge but the same was dismissed.