The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of the SDM based on cogent evidence cannot be interfered with unless they are on the face of it perverse and unsustainable.

( 1 ) THIS case has chequered history. Petitioner no. 2 Vijay Kumar Gupta claims to have purchased the plot bearing No. D-126, Mahendaru Enclave, Delhi in the name of his minor son Master Nikunj Kumar Gupta, petitioner no. 1 who was about eight years of age at the relevant time from its owners Nirmal Singh and Randhir Singh in the year 1984 with possession for a consideration of Rs. 20,000. 00. He mainly relies upon the Khasra Girdhwari i. e. revenue record from 1984 to October 1986. Interestingly he also relies upon one voucher showing the purchase of Palak seeds by him which he stored in the room constructed by him in the said plot. According to him, the sale deed could not be executed and registered though possession was handed over to him.

( 2 ) AS against this, respondent no. 4-Vinod Kumar Gupta claims to have purchased the plot with boundary wall and a room from the owners for a consideration of Rs. 68,000. 00 in the year 1984 with possession. However, the Halka Patwari issued Khasra Girdwari on 14. 11. 1986 showing possession of respondent no. 4 Vinod Kumar Gupta in column no. 3. Petitioners lodged a report with the SHO that respondent no. 4 had threatened to take possession forcibly. Respondent no. 4- Vinod Kumar Gupta also made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of police that though he visited the plot almost every week but on 1. 2. 1987, one Mr. Vijay Gupta who has been known to him for quiet some time as earlier he had business dealings with him, wanted to occupy the plot along with some persons but due to his presence he could not succeed and went away after threatening him and his friends for life.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, the SHO wrote a letter dated 13. 2. 1987 to the Tehsilder Revenue informing that they had received complaints from petitioner no. 2 Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta and respondent no. 4 Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta regarding a dispute over a plot and that petitioner no. 2 has produced photostat copies of Khasra Girdwari w. e. f. 1984 to October 1986 whereas respondent no. 4 has produced photostat copy of Khasra Girdwari of 31. 10. 1986 only and requested the Tehsildar to enable him to correct the ownership of the plot and a copy of the revenue record in support of his version.

( 4 ) ON 18. 2. 1987 Deputy Commissioner of Police took the possession of said disputed property under Section 33 of the Delhi Police Act by way of sealing it. On 19. 2. 1987, the petitioners moved an application before the Tehsildar Revenue for rectification in revenue record wherein respondent no. 4 was shown to be in possession of the property vide entry made in October, 1986. However, on 13. 4. 1987, preliminary order was made by the S. D. M under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C

( 5 ) ON 9th October, 1987 Tehsildar passed an order under section 39 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 holding the petitioners to be in lawful possession of the disputed property and directed correction of the entry of 1986 in favour of respondent no. 4 in revenue record in accordance with the provisions of section 27 (3) of the Act. On 2. 3. 1988 Kanungo corrected the said entry of 1986 making it in favour of the petitioner. Before this could be done, the S. D. M inspected the property on 28. 10. 1987 and submitted a report along with statement of witnesses. However on 29. 8. 1988 in criminal writ petition No. 99/1988, this court quashed the sealing order passed by the D. C. P under section 33 of the Delhi Police Act and ordered for maintaining status quo ante with regard to the possession that existed prior to the passing of order dated 18. 2. 1987 by the D. C. P. This order was passed on the admitted position that no order had been passed by the S. D. M for attachment of disputed property.

( 6 ) ON 22. 5. 1990 this court stayed further proceedings before the S. D. M but on that day, the S. D. M had already rendered the decision on the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C in favour of respondent no. 4 wherein he dealt with contention and claims of bot