Allahabad High Court
Prathvi Raj Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 September, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154439
Reserved on : 04.08.2025
Delivered on : 02.09.2025
Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22554 of 2022
Applicant :- Prathvi Raj Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Connected with
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13749 of 2017
Applicant :- Prithviraj Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Chandra Dwivedi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dilip Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. Even though, the name of Mr. Suresh Chandra Dwivedi is duly published in the cause list as counsel for opposite party-3 Bajrang Dayal but neither he nor any one on his behalf appeared to oppose these applications, even in revised call.
2. It is apposite to mention here that subsequent to the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by this Court, notice has been served upon the learned counsel representing opposite party-3. The same was taken on record.
3. Perused the record.
4. Applicant-Prithviraj Singh has filed Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13749 of 2017 (Prithviraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.4.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Tirwa, District Kannauj in Case No.90 of 2017, Bajrang Dayal versus Prithviraj Singh & others under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. (contained in Annexure No.3 to this affidavit).
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the opposite parties not to create disturbance in harvesting the crop standing over land in dispute and/or grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
5. During pendency of aforementioned application, applicant-Prathviraj Singh filed the subsequent application i.e. Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22554 of 2022 (Prathviraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) for the following relief:-
"It is expedient in the interest of justice this to Hon'ble Court may graciously be direct the opposite party no.2 that pleased appoint the receiver to other person or handed over to the applicant of property Gata No.72, 151, 210, 114, 149 and 150 situated at village Balnapur, District Kannauj for take care of the its crops, so that justice may be done.
And/or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
6. Record shows that the dispute relates to Khatauni Khata Nos. 72, 151, 210, 114, 149, 150 situate in Village-Balnapur (Tirwa), Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj.
7. Bajrang Dayal-opposite party-3, who alleges himself to be the power of attorney holder of the co-tenure holders namely Chandrapal and Arvind of the Khatas in dispute, filed an application dated 10.04.2017 before opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirwa, District-Kannauj with the prayer that proceedings be initiated under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. regarding the land in dispute as there is an eminent chance of breach of peace, on account of dispute between the parties regarding the land in dispute.
8. On the aforesaid application, opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj passed an order dated 10.04.2017 directing the Station House Officer of Police Station-Thathiya, District-Kannauj to conduct an enquiry regarding possession on the spot in respect of the land in dispute and submit his report.
9. In compliance of above order dated 10.04.2017, the Station House Officer of Police Station-Thathiya, District-Kannauj conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 13.04.2017 recommending therein that proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C. i.e. attachment of the land in dispute be initiated as there is eminent threat of breach of peace on account of dispute regarding the land in dispute.
10. On the basis of above, opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj decided to initiate proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C., regarding the land in dispute. Accordingly, Case No. 90 of 2017 (Bajrang Dayal Vs. Prithviraj and Others), under Sections 145, 146 Cr.P.C. came to be registered in the Court of opposite party-2.
11. Subsequently, opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj straight away passed an order dated 18.04.2017, whereby the land in dispute was attached in terms of Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.
12. Thus feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj, applicant-Prithviraj Singh approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13749 of 2017 (Prithviraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others).
13. Aforementioned application came up for admission on 03.05.2017 and this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional-Magistrate, Tirwa District Kannauj in Case No. 90 of 2017 under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C.,
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the civil suit no. 170 of 2012 was filed by the opposite party no.2 in which injunction order was granted inspite of the same, proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C., has been drawn which is bad in law and is against the provisions of law.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant two weeks' thereafter, is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained between the parties."
14. Subsequent to the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj one Sugar Singh son of Dashrath was appointed as the receiver (Supurdagar) of the land so attached.
15. Thereafter, a report dated 23.07.2020 was submitted by theTehsildar, Tehsil-Tirwa stating therein that the land in dispute is under the supurdagi of receiver Sugar Singh.
16. However, subsequently, the receiver Sugar Singh died. Accordingly, applicant Prathviraj Singh filed an application dated 11.04.2022 before opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj with the prayer that he be permitted to harvest the standing wheat crops in the land in dispute by giving an undertaking.
17. Upon receipt of aforesaid application dated 11.04.2022, opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj passed an order dated 21.04.2022 directing the Station House Officer of Police Station-Thathiya to appoint another receiver as the earlier receiver Sugar Singh has died and further explain the place of deposit of income generated due to attachment of the land in dispute by receiver Sugar Singh and also to submit the accounts of same.
18. However, as no consequential action was taken by the Station House Officer of Police Station-Thathiya, in compliance of the aforementioned order dated 21.04.2022, applicant-Prathviraj Singh again approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22554 of 2022 (Prathviraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others). As per the record of aforementioned application, no effective written order has been passed by this Court in aforementioned application.
19. Mr. Dileep Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant in both the applications submits that the order of attachment dated 18.04.2017 passed by opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel for applicant submitted that since opposite party-3 Bajrang Dayal on whose application, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated, is neither the recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute nor was in possession over the land in dispute at any point of time has thus no locus to submit an application for initiating proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. Opposite party-3, while passing the order impugned dated 18.04.2017 completely overlooked the aforesaid aspect of the matter, which has vitiated the order impugned.
20. It was next contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the land in dispute was purchased by applicant from the erstwhile recorded co-tenure holder by means of a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2010. The vendor of the aforesaid sale deed has not challenged the same by initiating any proceedings whatsoever in the competent Court of civil jurisdiction or seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in the land in dispute before the Revenue Court.
21. In the submission of the learned counsel for applicant, opposite party-3 alleges himself to be the power of attorney holder of co-tenure holders i.e. Chandrapal and Arvind. On the basis of above, opposite party-3 instituted Original Suit No. 177 of 2012 (Chandrapal and Another Vs. Prithviraj Singh and Others) for a decree of cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 19.07.2010 pertaining to the land mentioned in Schedule A, B, C, D attached to the plaint. The Schedules to the plaint read as under:-
Schedule -A
Gata No.
Area
Share
0.9229 Hec.
According to share
0.3360 Hec.
According to share
Schedule -B
Gata No.
Area
Share
0.1300 Hec.
According to share
1.4200 Hec.
According to share
0.1740 Hec.
According to share
0.1010 Hec.
According to share
Schedule -C
Gata No.
Area
Share
7.5410 Hec.
According to share
2.3880 Hec.
According to share
22. Alongwith the plaint of aforementioned suit, an application for temporary injunction in terms of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. He, however, submits that no decree of permanent injunction was prayed for by the plaintiff. It was thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that since no consequential relief was prayed, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. However, the application for temporary injunction was decided by the trial Court, vide order dated 30.08.2013, whereby the parties to the suit were directed to maintain status-quo.
23. Against order dated 30.08.2013, the plaintiffs Chandrapal and others filed a Misc. Appeal before the District Judge, Kannauj as provided under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. Same was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 28 of 2013 (Chandrapal and Others Vs. Prathviraj Singh and Others). However, no interim order staying the effect and operation of the order dated 30.08.2013 has been passed by the appellate Court.
24. On the above premise, it was thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that when opposite party-3 Bajrang Dayal power of attorney holder of co-tenure holders Chandrapal and Arvind failed to get an order from the Civil Court regarding the land in dispute that application dated 10.04.2017 was engineered for initiating proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. As such, the impugned proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court.
25. It was also contended by the learned counsel for applicant that it is an undisputed fact that an Original Suit is already pending between the parties in the competent Court of civil jurisdiction regarding the land in dispute. In view of above, the proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot be maintained. Remedy of opposite party-3 is to seek his remedy in the pending suit itself. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the following judgments of Supreme Court (1) Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 427, (2) Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and Another, (2000) 4 SCC 440 and (3) Mohd. Abid and Others Vs. Ravi Naresh and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 921.
26. Learned counsel for applicant then invited the attention of Court to the judgment of Supreme Court in Mahar Jahan Vs. State of Delhi and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 421, wherein the Apex Court has observed that where the dispute between the parties relates to possession, the parties should be relegated to the Civil Court. With reference to the facts of the case, the learned counsel for applicant urged that since the dispute between the parties is regarding possession, therefore, the observation made by Apex Court in aforementioned judgment is squarely attracted to the facts of present case.
27. On the strength of aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel for applicant vehemently uruged that the order impugned dated 18.04.2017 passed by opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj in Case No. 90 of 2017, under Sections 145, 146 Cr.P.C. (Bajrang Dayal Vs. Prithviraj and Others) as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned case are liable to be quashed by this Court.
28. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite parties-1 and 2 submits that the order impugned dated 18.04.2017 passed by opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistration, Tirwa, District-Kannauj is perfectly just and legal. Accordingly, the proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. regarding the land in dispute were initiated on the report of the Station House Officer of Police Station-Thathiya, District-Kannauj regarding the land in dispute. However, the aforesaid report has not been challenged in present application. Since the basis of the proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. is the report of the Station House Officer of Police Station-Thathiya, District-Kannauj but the same having not been challenged, therefore, the prayer prayed for by applicant by means of present criminal misc. applications is misconceived.
29. Learned A.G.A. next submitted that proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. are preventive in nature i.e. to prevent breach of peace. Since the report of the Station House Officer of Police Station-Thathiya, District-Kannauj, which is the basis of the proceedings impugned, clearly shows that there is an apprehension regarding breach of peace due to a dispute regarding possession over the land in dispute, therefore, preventive measure undertaken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj by passing the order dated 18.04.2017 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Moreover, this Court does not interfere with the exercise of discretion by an administration authority, if it is established from the record that the same is neither illegal nor arbitrary. As there is nothing on record to establish to the contrary, it was thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no interference is warranted by this Court in present applications.
30. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite parties-1 and 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is an admitted case of the parties that applicant had acquired right, title and interest over the land in dispute by way of a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2010 executed by a co-tenure holder. As such, applicant has clear right and tile over the land in dispute so long as the aforesaid sale deed subsists. It is also an admitted fact that opposite party-3 Bajrang Dayal has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. Opposite party-3 is the power of attorney holder of co-tenures Chandrapal and Arvind. On the basis of power of attorney executed by the co-tenure holders Chandrapal and Arvind, opposite party-3 instituted an Original Suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 19.07.2010 executed by a co-tenure/co-owner in favour of applicant. No decree of permanent injunction has been prayed on behalf of plaintiffs regarding the land in dispute i.e. to restrain the defendants from causing interference/objection in the peaceful possession of plaintiffs over the land in dispute in aforementioned suit. In view of above, the law laid down by the Apex Court as noted above is squarely applicable to the facts of present case as an Original Suit between the parties regarding the land in dispute is already pending in the Civil Court. Remedy of opposite party-3 is to seek redressal of his grievance before the Civil Court itself. In view of above, neither the order impugned nor the proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. regarding the land in dispute can be sustained in law or fact.
31. In view of the discussion made above, the present applications succeed and are liable to be allowed.
32. They are, accordingly, allowed.
33. The order impugned dated 18.04.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj in Case No. 90 of 2017 (Bajrang Dayal Vs. Prithviraj and Others), under Sections 145, 146 Cr.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned case shall stand quashed.
34. It is, however, provided that opposite party-2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Tirwa, District-Kannauj shall get the possession of the land in dispute handed over to applicant within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Opposite party shall thereafter pass an order regarding the income and receipt of the amount generated due to attachment of the land in dispute and thereafter pay the due amount to the applicant within a period of one month from today.
35. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 02.09.2025
Vinay
