IMPORTANT POINT
A tenant in common or a co-sharer should not approach police to take preventive action in garb of Section 145, Cr. P. C. as it tentamounts to depriving a co-sharer of his right to enjoy possession which he is otherwise legally entitled to.

JUDGMENT

R. L. Anand J. - This petition is being disposed of separately and stands detached from R.S.A. Nos. 662 and 1184 of 1994.

2. Nahar Singh, petitioner, has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the respondents for the quashment of the Kalandra filed by the S.H.O., Police Station, Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana (Respondent No. 3) under Section 145, Cr. P.C. alongwith the order of the S.D.M., Raikot dated 7-2-2000, Annexure P- 10 and all proceedings taken in pursuance of the order dated 20

12-1999 pending before the S.D.M., Raikot.

3. The facts are not much in dispute but only the question of law is involved. Admittedly the land belongs to Dera Udasian. which is the owner to the extent of 19 kanals 5 marlas but the dispute in the present case is with regard to the land measuring 39 kanals comprised in khasra Nos. 590, 591, 592, 593, 594 and 599 min. The area of 39 kanals was earlier in the tenancy of Niranjan Singh. Petitioner and respondents 5 and 6; namely. Nirmal Singh and Mohinder Singh are real brothers and they are sons of Niranjan Singh. Niranjan Singh was occupying the area measuring 39 kanals comprised in the khasra Nos. stated above in the capacity of a tenant under the Dera Niranjan Singh died somewhere in the year 1983. The petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 being tenants in common, inherited the tenancy rights of Niranjan Singh. It appears that thereafter some dispute arose amongst the brothers with Nirmal Singh and Mohinder Singh on one side and the petitioner Nahar Singh on the other side. On the application of Nirmal Singh and Mohinder Singh. SHO. Police Station. Raikot started the proceedings under. Section 145. Cr. P.C. According to the SHO there was likelihood of the breach of peace with regard to the area in dispute and he submitted the Kalandra. Annexure P-6 before the learned SDM. Raikot who passed the preliminary order dated 20-12-1999 under Section 145. Cr. P.C. and also appointed a Receiver. Nahar Singh is not satisfied with the proceedings taken up by the SDM. therefore he has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashment of the proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P.C. and all subsequent proceedings taken by the SDM. on the ground that since the contesting parties i.e. the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are tenants in common after the death of their father Niranjan Singh in such a situation the proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P.C. are nothing butan abuse of process of law as the possession of the contesting parties will be considered as joint.

4. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondents 1 to 4 have fried one set of written statement and the State has tried to justify the proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P.C. For our purposes the stand taken up by respondents 5 and 6 in their written statement is relevant. According to this written statement the land in dispute was being cultivated by Niranjan Singh tin his death with the help of all the three brothers and after his death this land is being cultivated jointly as they had inherited the tenancy rights of their father.

5. In these circumstances the legal point which arises in this case is whether the proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P.C. can be initiated when the contesting parties are tenants in common.

6. Section 145. Cr. P.C. lays down that 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 peace 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.

7. A reading of the above provision would show that the o