MLRC. According to him, the said proceedings were duly addressed by both jointly i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant under their respective signatures on 21st October, 2016. He would further urge that in the said proceedings before revenue authorities the relinquished share of the petitioner of 45 Are out of Gat No1668 was duly admitted by the respondent No.2/complainant. His further contentions are, the petitioner has initiated Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2020 for declaration and injunction seeking relief that he is owner of the aforesaid property to the extent of 45 Are in which application for grant of temporary injunction Exh.5 moved under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC came to be allowed on 18th November, 2022 by the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Satana. In addition, his contentions are, the respondent No.2/complainant has objected the revenue entry for the first time in 2022 by moving proceedings under Section 247 of the MLRC which was answered against the respondent No.2/complainant. As such, the claim that the fact about the land was transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 2002 was well within knowledge of the respondent No.2/complainant. The respondent No.2/complainant without considering the fact that the petitioner has perfected his title by virtue of ownership, objected the same by way of after thought after a period of 20 years. According to him, since the issue is subjudice before the competent Civil Court, criminal proceedings are not maintainable.
