MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dt. 1-2-99 passed by the learned S.D.M. Pratapgarh whereby he attached the land and appointed receiver thereon. The parties to the dispute are Madan Lal and his 3 sons on one side (petitioners) and 4 sons of Madan Lal on the other (respondents No. 2 to 5).

(2.) The short facts of the case are these. Giriraj (respondent No. 5) filed an application before the S.D.M. Pratapgarh praying that receiver be appointed on the land mentioned at para No. 1 of his application. It was stated that the land mentioned at para No. 1 of the application stood in the name of his father Madan Lal (petitioner No. 1) though not distributed by metes and bounds, yet he was in possession of 1/7th of the land and was cultivating thereon; but his six brothers were adamant to deprive him of his land and they had warned him that if he entered the land, he would be killed. This application was forwarded by the S.D.M. to the police for enquiry. The S.H.O., P.S. Pratapgarh, after enquiry, filed an application u/S. 145, Cr.P.C. for action in the matter. The learned S.D.M. passed the preliminary order on 28-7-98 and issued notices to the 6 non-applicants. The petitioners No. 1 to 4 appeared and filed their reply opposing the application of Giriraj. The learned S.D.M. by the impugned order attached the land and appointed the S.H.D. Pratapgarh as receiver thereon.

(3.) Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing out that the learned S.D.M. has not recorded in the order that it was a case of emergency, contended that the orders of attachment and appointment of receiver are illegal. He submitted that the apprehension of the breach of peace is different than the state of emergency, and order under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. can be passed only when it is found that the case requires emergent action.