Moti Lal vs Banwari And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10894 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 892 of 1989
 

 
Revisionist :- Moti Lal
 
Opposite Party :- Banwari And Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- S.N. Srivastava,S.K.Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,C.P.Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1. Case is called out in the revised list. None responds to press this revision on behalf of revisionist. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is not present. Since the Criminal Revision Nos. 892 of 1989 and 895 of 1989 are between the same party and about the same property in question and about the same order passed by the Executive Magistrate on 26.10.1088 and order dated 01.05.1989 by learned A.S.J., hence both the Criminal Revisions are being decided by a common order/judgment .

2. Order-sheet dated 03rd February, 2023, speaks that last opportunity was provided to the revisionist to press this revision, otherwise this revision have to be heard and decided on merit with the assistance of learned A.G.A.

3. Heard learned A.G.A and perused the record.

4. From perusal of record it transpires that the revisionist is claiming the property in question on the basis that during the consolidation, the property in question was allotted in his Chak by the order of D.D.C passed in Reference No. 1024 under Section 48 (3) C.H. Act and opposite party no. 2 has no concern with the disputed land.

5. Though, the revisionist admits that opposite party no. 2 Banwari has preferred a review application, which has probably been rejected that is why Banwari has preferred a revision in High Court and a writ petition was also filed challenging the order passed by the A.D.D.C, which was allowed and it was directed that fresh reference be made in light of the objections raised by Banwari and others. The case of Banwari and others is that upto the stage of S.O.C, they were put and continued to be in possession over the disputed land under Section 24 C.H. Act.

6. The present revisionist had moved an application before the Executive Magistrate to proceed with the property in question under Sections 145 and 146 (1) Cr.P.C, in which it was concluded that Moti Lal was in possession prior to two months from the date of preliminary order passed by the S.D.M, he also declared revisionist to be in possession and the concerned police station was directed to provide the possession of the property in question to the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 was restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the revisionist.

7. Opposite party no. 2 - Banwari and others have challenged the order of the Executive Magistrate through Criminal Revision No 247 of 1988, which was decided by the Ist A.S.J, Jaunpur. The revision was allowed and the final order dated 26.10.1988 was set aside. Preliminary order dated 09th February, 1985 and also the order dated 13th March, 1985, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were maintained, but the learned Executive Magistrate was directed to decide the point indicated in the order of the revisional court afresh.

8. Being aggrieved, this criminal revision has been preferred in the the High Court.

9. This court is of the view that in view of learned A.S.J. the order passed by the Executive Magistrate was sketchy and has been passed in a cursory manner without dealing all the points involved between the parties.

10. This Court is of the view that there is no material irregularity or illegality in the order of the revisional court, as the preliminary order passed by the Executive Magistrate, and the order passed under order 145 Cr.P.C had been kept intact by the learned A.S.J.

11. Hence, the criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.4.2023

Vinod.