Honble SINGH, J.—By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners have prayed that the order dated 26.4.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 1/1991 whereby it was declared that Babu Singh was entitled to the possession of the disputed property and the receiver of the property was directed to deliver posses- sion to Babu Singh as well as the order dated 8.5.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/1991 be quashed and set aside.

(2). It appears from the order dated 18.3.1991 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh that the Station House Officer of the Police Station Sanga- ria filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh that the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sangaria filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, under Sections 107/151/116/(3) and 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was stated in the complaint that there was apprehension of breach of peace and there was a dispute between the parties as to the possession of the property. On 20.1.1991, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, attached the disputed property under Section 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and appointed the Tehsildar Sangaria to be the receiver of the disputed property. Affidavits were filed for proving the possession of Babu Singh within two months before the filing of the complaint. Bhola Singh, who is the son of Smt. Bhano (petitioner) stated in his affidavit that at the instance of his mother, he agreed to sell the disputed property and after obtaining Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money, delivered the possession of the land to Babu Singh. In his report dated 12.3.1991, the Tehsildar Sangaria reported that the crop in the disputed field was of Babu Singh. In short, on the basis of evidence produced by the parties, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate hold that Babu Singh was in possession of the disputed property within two months of the filing of the complaint and, therefore, he directed that the property in dispute be delivered to Babu Singh.

(3). Leela Singh filed the revision petition No. 39/1991 against the order dated 26.4.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, vide order dated 8.5.1991. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that since Babu Singh was in possession of the disputed property on 20.1.1991, the date on which the property was attached under Section 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, was just and proper and did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.

(4). The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the land in dispute belongs to Smt. Bhano, petitioner No. 1. Babu Singh, non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner No. 1 for specific performance of contract to sell 6 bighas of land on the basis of an agreement purporting to have been executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of the non-petitioner No. 1. According to that agree- ment, the petitioner No. 1 agreed to sell her 6 bighas of land at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha and obtained Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money and executed the agreement to sell on 16.7.1989. Later on she obtained another sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the vendee, through her son Bhola Singh and the lands possession was also delivered to the non-petitioner No. 1 by Bhola Singh. Applications for injunction were filed in that suit by the parties. The petitioner No. 1 moved an application praying that non-petitioner No. 1 be restrained from interfering with her possession as the possession of the land had not been given by her to the non-petitioner No. 1. In the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 1, it was prayed that petitioner No. 1 be restrained from transfering the land to another person, the Additional District Judge, according to averments made in the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document