Allowed

Raj Kumar v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellanabad and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2013CRM-M/16534/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the single-judge bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petition to quash contradictory orders regarding land possession. The court set aside lower court orders directing a fresh inquiry and remanded the matter for implementation of a previous order.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 22.11.2010 and 12.01.2011 set aside; case remanded to trial court for implementation of order dated 1.10.2010;

Raj Kumar Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-16534 of 2012 (O&M) [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-16534 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: Sept. 23,2013

¶4

Raj Kumar........................................... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellenabad, and another .................... Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶8

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

Present: Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Lavanya Paul, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

Mr. Ashok Kumar Kubber, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of order dated 24.1.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa and order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellenabad.

¶15

Shiv Dutt Sharma had moved a petition under Kaur RupinderSection 145/146 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sub Divisional 2013.10.09 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-16534 of 2012 (O&M) [ 2 ] Magistrate Ellenabad alleging that the land comprising Khasra No.880 in Bandobast and Khasra No.764 measuring 6 kanal 6 marlas was left open for Hindu Sadans for Shiv Mandir as per Jamabandi 1962-63. The issue regarding possession of Khasra No.764 had been contested between Shri Chanan Mal son of Shri Ganga Jal, Smt. Rukmani Devi wife of Shri Rameshwar Dass and Shri Brahmin Sabha, Ellenabad, in R.S.A. No. 680 of 1960 upto High Court and the judgment has attained finality. The land in dispute was purchased by Raj Kumar, Darshana Kumari, Des Raj and Ratan Lal by way of registered sale deed dated 7.5.1990 from Shiv Shambu Sharma which bears the same khasra No.764. Attachment orders were passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellenabad, on 28.12.2007. However, on a revision filed by the present petitioner-Raj Kumar a statement was made by Shiv Shambu Sharma that he had no dispute regarding the land with the present petitioner and thereafter an order was obtained for getting the possession of the land from the petitioner. This order was challenged before this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 34222 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-7).

¶17

Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for getting the order implemented. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellenabad,vide order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure

¶18

Kaur Rupinder 2013.10.09 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-16534 of 2012 (O&M) [ 3 ]

¶20

P-8) had given a finding that the petitioners were not the owners of the land in dispute as per the Revenue record and this finding was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, vide order dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P-5).

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the fresh inquiry which has now been initiated by the Courts below do not form part of the application initiated under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. This aspect has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents.

¶22

In view of the above, the orders dated 22.11.2010 and 12.01.2011 (Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively) are set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for implementation of the order dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P5). The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.10.2013.

¶23

The petition is allowed.

¶24

23.9.2013 Rupi

¶25

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶26

Kaur Rupinder 2013.10.09 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Raj Kumar v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellanabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellanabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Preet Hire Purchase and Leasing Corp. Vs Kashmir Singh

Amit Kumar @ Vishal Kumar Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

H.C. Vedpal Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Vs Sanjay Kumar Bansal & Anr.

Lakhwinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.