Honble GOYAL, J.–Facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that on 3.8.2000, the S.H.O., Dudu, District Jaipur, submitted a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.M., Sambherlake, District Jaipur, with the averments that a dispute arose between the parties regarding possession of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.511/1060, measuring 19 Bighas and 3 Biswa in village Gazi, Tehsil Dudu for their share and a quarrel took place between both the parties on 30.7.2000 and 18 persons from both the sides received injuries in that incident. Criminal Cases under various Sections of IPC were registered against them and as such there is every likelihood of breach of peace. On this complaint, Tehsildar, Dudu, was appointed Receiver of this land by learned Magistrate, Vide order dated 3.8.2000, and he was directed to take over the possession o the land and manage for its cultivation and show cause notices were also issued to both the parties.

(2). Party No.2, instead of filing reply to the show cause notice, filed a Criminal Revision No.21/2000 against the impugned order dated 3.8.2000, which was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambherlake, vide order dated 4.7.2001. Consequently the order dated 3.8.2000 was set-aside. Hence, this revision by persons of Party No.1 against the impugned order dated 4.7.2001.

(3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant Provisions of Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. are that whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of Police Officer that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning and land, he shall make an order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and may require the parties to attend the Court on a specified date and time to file written submissions of the respective claims regarding the fact of actual possession of the land in dispute.

(4). Section 146 Cr.P.C. provides that if he Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145, considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession, he may attach the land in dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of parties.

(5). Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the learned Magistrate did not record his satisfaction as provided under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. This finding is contrary to the facts recorded by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 3.8.2000, wherein he specifically mentioned the relevant facts and was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace exists concerning the land in dispute. Learned Additional Sessions Judge next observed that the learned Magistrate while passing the order of appointing receiver, did not consider the provisions of Section 146 Cr.P.C. This observation appears to be in conformity with the provisions of Section 146 Cr.P.C. as the learned Magistrate no where observed in his order that he considers this case to be one of emergency or that he was unable to decide as to which of both the parties was in possession of the land or none of the parties was then in such possession. the third ground for setting-aside the order dated 3.8.2000, according to learned Additional Sessions Judge was that a revenue suit was already pending in the Revenue Court and there was stay order in favour of Party No.2 and thus the order dated 3.8.2000 was bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order dated 3.8.2000 was an interim order, hence the revision was not maintainable. This contention seems to be without merit. It was held by this Court in Ram Pratap & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), that when the Receiver was appointed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. revision would lie. Learned counsel for the petitioners next argued that the petitioners had filed a revenue suit before the Assistant Collector,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document