Disputes over land title must be resolved in civil court, and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash orders related to such disputes.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed and the order dt.09.11.17 Ann.3 and Order dt.12.12.17 Ann.4 may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to law with all consequential relief; Any other appropriate order or direction which is deemed just, proper and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one complaint was registered before the learned court below by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Gangasahar, Bikaner regarding a dispute in relation to a plot measuring 70 x 159 square feet situated in Khasra No.119/116 at Gangasahar, over which both the parties were claiming possession.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned court below, while adjudicating the dispute between the parties, held that the right and title of the land in question was to be decided by the civil court, while the question posed was whether the land in question could be sold or possession thereof, during the attachment, can be transferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the land in question was taken from the petitioner by the Receiver. Learned counsel further submitted that without taking into consideration the factum of denial of possession in respect of the land in question, the impugned order dated 12.12.2017 has been passed by the learned court, whereby the order passed on 09.11.2017 has been upheld.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned court below ought to have gone into the issue of conscious possession, rather than evading adjudication on the core issues and continue the proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the plot in question is part of the petitioner s ancestral property coming from his grandfather Bhera Ram Ji, and the same was a khatedari land.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned court below ought to have touched the evidence of the respondents No.2 & 3, while keeping in context the registered sale deed, which was executed on 18.03.2011, when the land in question was already under attachment.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondents however, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the respondents have a registered sale deed in their favour, and thus, their rights are settled in the eye of law. He thus submitted that the impugned orders dated 09.11.2017 (Annexure-3) and 12.12.2017 (Annexure-4) are correct in the eye of law.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned courts below have adjudicated the dispute between the parties, while prima facie believing the registered sale deed, which is absolutely a correct and legal way of making adjudication. This Court also finds that once the sale deed is registered and it was before the learned authorities below, then any challenge to the same could have been decided only by the civil court, and thus, any other stand taken would be prejudicial to the rights of the respondents.

12. The withdrawal orders of the civil suit placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, annexed as Appendix B, C & D with the application moved by the petitioner for bringing subsequent facts on record, are of no consequence at this stage, particularly, when the proceedings in revenue court woul