The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashal of orders attaching disputed land under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC to prevent breach of peace. The court held the orders were not faulty and vacated a prior stay order.
Petition dismissed; attachment of disputed land upheld; stay order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2023: PHHC: 100624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRMs-51865 & 39083-2023 and CRM-M-41061-2013
Reserved on: 08.12.2023
Pronounced on: 16.12.2023
HARJINDER SINGH
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kakkar, Advocate, for Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Malkiat Singh and Ms. Neha, Advocates, for respondent No.3.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
CRM-M-41061-2013
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [In short ‘CrPC’], petitioner prayed to quash kalendra under Section 145 CrPC dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure P1), presented by SHO Police Station, Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra; order dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pehowa; and order dated 06.11.2013 (Annexure P5) passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, alleging the same to be contrary to the provisions of Section 145 CrPC. Petitioner further prayed for staying his dispossession from the disputed property.
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
(b) Harjinder Singh, his three brothers Charanjit Singh, Baldev Singh & Palvinder Singh; and mother Gurdeep Kaur (petitioner and respondents No.4 to 7 herein) were impleaded as party No.1 in the kalendra; whereas, vendee Lakhvinder Kaur and subsequent vendee Balwinder Kaur (Respondents No.3 & 2 herein) were impleaded as party No.2.
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 10
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
the same as per their share. Gurdeep Kaur had died. 2 acre of land comprised in Khasra No.716 and 719 fall in Markanda river, which is at a distance of about 1 km from the remaining land and that Girdawari of Khasra No.716 was in the name of Harjinder Singh, whereas Girdawari of remaining land was in the joint name of all the co-sharers. It was further claimed that Harjinder Singh had sold land measuring 8 kanal out of his share to Lakhvinder Kaur vide sale deed dated 23.11.2010 comprised in Khasra No.716 and had delivered possession thereof to her, but when Lakhvinder Kaur sold the land to Balwinder Kaur, she in collusion with vendee got incorporated the delivery of possession of Khasra No.608 min South (2-0) and 609 (6-0), which in fact had not been delivered to Lakhvinder Kaur. It was alleged that Lakhvinder Kaur and Balwinder Kaur along with their respective husbands had committed fraud by incorporating valuable portion of the land in the sale deed and that Harjinder Singh had even filed a complaint under Section 420 IPC in the police station. Prayer was made for setting aside the kalendra.
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 10
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
06.11.2013 (Annexure P5), by observing that it appeared that ld. Executive Magistrate had passed the impugned order attaching the disputed land under Section 146(1) Cr.PC in the interest of maintaining public peace and tranquility so as to prevent any unpleasant happening between the parties.
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 4 of 10
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, but the same failed.
the record.
under: -
145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 5 of 10
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression" land or water" includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute,
(4) The Magistrate shall then, without, reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub- section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub- section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub- section (1).
(5) Nothing in this section' shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under subsection (1) shall be final.
146. Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver.
(1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub- section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 6 of 10
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
possession thereof: Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute.
(2) When the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute, he may, if no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been appointed by any Civil Court, make such arrangements as he considers proper for looking after the property or if he thinks fit, appoint a receiver thereof, who shall have, subject to the control of the Magistrate, all the powers of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908);
Provided that in the event of a receiver being subsequently appointed in relation to the subject of dispute by any Civil Court, the Magistrate-
(a) shall order the receiver appointed by him to hand over the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver appointed by the Civil Court and shall thereafter discharge the receiver appointed by him;
(b) may make such other incidental or consequential orders as may be just.
above, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 961, held as under:
12. Xxxx
Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145, Cr.P.C. It can only be read in the context of Section 145, Cr.P.C. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof
13. The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145 (1) of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 7 of 10
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be a material on record before Magistrate when the submission of the parties filed, documents produced or evidence adduced.
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 8 of 10
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
whereas remaining entire land was in joint possession of all the co-sharers. However, to the specific query put by the Court to ld. counsel for the petitioner, as to when Harjinder Singh came in possession of specific Khasra No.716 as per the entry in the Khasra Girdawari or as to whether the said entry was reflected regarding his possession over a specific Khasra number in the jamabandi prior to Khasra Girdawari Annexure P8 or any other revenue entry or to when the said entry was incorporated in Khasra Girdawari, ld. counsel was complexly at loss of words.
CRM-39083-2023
22 . This application, moved by respondent No.3 to place on record certificate Annexure R3, is allowed in the absence of any counter by the
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 9 of 10
CRM-M-41061-2013
2023: PHHC: 100624
non-applicants. Thus, it is found on the basis of Annexure R3/1 that applicant/petitioner is now left with only 19 marla of land out of total 112 kanal 8 marla of the entire khewat.
CRM-51865-2023
Any pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
16.12.2023 (DEEPAK GUPTA) ����� JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes 2. Whether reportable? No
VIVEK PAHWA 2023.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 10 of 10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders attaching the disputed land under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC were illegal.
Whether subsequent sale deeds executed during the pendency of the petition to implead new parties should be allowed.
Whether the stay order granted earlier in the petition should be vacated.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and othersExplained¶78
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 961
3 provisions across 1 enactments
HARJINDER SINGH
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
DEEPAK GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
