Manohar vs Gokul
2023 Latest Caselaw 14379 MP

                                                               1

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT I N D O R E
                                                           BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                                            ON THE 2nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14975 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                              MANOHAR S/O SHANKARLAL PATIDAR, AGED
                              47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                           1. GRAM RAMNAGAR, TEHSIL JAWAD DISRICT
                              NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                              KANHAIYALAL S/O SHANKARLAL PATIDAR,
                              AGED 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                           2.
                              R/O RAMNAGAR TEH. JAVAD DISTT. NEEMUCH
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                   .....APPLICANTS
                           (BY SHRI VISHAL PATIDAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                              GOKUL S/O PANNA BHEEL, AGED 60 YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O GRAM RAMNAGAR,
                           1. TEHSIL JAWAD DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                              DHAPUBAI   S/O   DHANNA BHIL  GRAM
                              RAMNAGAR TEH. JAVAD DISTT. NEEMUCH
                           2.
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. RATANGARH
                           3.
                                DIST. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.)
                                  This M.Cr.C. coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:

                                                            ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 04-09-2023 17:45:55

This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants with a prayer to set aside the orders dated 19.11.2020 passed by S.D.M. Jawad District Neemuch in Case No. 0003/Cri/145/2020-21 and 25.2.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Jawad District Neemuch in Criminal Revision No. 94/2020. The learned SDM by the impugned order directed that till the disposal of the matter, both the parties will not interfere in their respective possession. The said order was affirmed by the revisional Court.

2/ According to the case, respondents no. 1 and 2 submitted an application under section 145 of Cr.P.C. before the SDM by stating that they are owner of the disputed land on the way of western side of Ramnagar to Doodhtalai. The land in question is in possession of respondent no. 2 which was given to tribal by the government as mentioned in column 12 of khasra. Both the parties claimed their title over the said land, so there is probability to disturb peace by them. Therefore, the proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated. Thereafter considering the allegation and facts of the case, S.D.M. passed impugned order dated 19.11.2020 and it was observed that father of non applicant no. 2 is in possession of land mentioned in column No. 12, survey Nos. 139 admeasuring 1 hectare and 141 admeasuring 1 hectare and directed both the parties not to interfere in their respective possession. Thereafter applicants filed a criminal revision challenging the impugned order and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.2.2021 dismissed the revision by affirming the impugned order passed by SDM.

3/ Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the courts below have committed an error in not appreciating the fact that applicants have got possession over the suit land since last 45 years but the concerned Patwari and Revenue Inspector have given erroneous reports regarding

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 04-09-2023 17:45:55

possession. There is no material available on record upon which the learned Additional Sessions Judge can interfere in the order passed by learned SDM. Therefore, learned counsel for applicants prays for allowing this petition by setting aside both the orders.

4/ Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for applicants and submits that the order passed by both the courts below are based upon the fact and legal principle of law, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders.

5/ Heard both the parties and perused the record.

6/ Tn the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of UP reported in (1985)1 SCC 427, it has been held as follows :

"In view of the fact that civil proceedings in respect of the disputed premises is pending before the competent civil court, where interim reliefs have been prayed for and obtained, the reappears to be no justification for continuing with the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. pending before the S.D.M.

Shri Tiwari learned Counsel submitted that in case the plaintiffs suit is either withdrawn or dismissed, he would be left with no remedy. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the Supreme Court judgment as reported in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of UP reported in (1985)1 SCC 427"

7/ It is settled position of law that in procedure of section 145 of Cr.P.C, determination of title is immaterial and such proceedings is limited to the question as to who is in actual possession on particular day, because the Revenue Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title and section 145 of Cr.P.C is intended to provide specific

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 04-09-2023 17:45:55

remedy arising out of the dispute relating to immovable property.

8/ In view of the aforesaid settled position of law and from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court has passed specific order relating to the fact of possession of the party on the suit land and the trial Court did not exceed its jurisdiction, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is according to law. There is no requirement to interfere in the impugned order.

9/ In light of the aforesaid discussions, this petition is dismissed and the order passed by the trial Court is accordingly affirmed.

CC as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE amol

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 04-09-2023 17:45:55