SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(J&K) 27

JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Hasnain Massodi, J.
Abdul Gani Rather -Appellant
Versus
Fayaz Ahmad Khan & Ors. -Resopndent
Cr. Rev. No. 06/2002, IA (cr) No. 140/2009
Decided On : 04-02-2012

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. A. Ronga, Advocate for the Respondents.

The main legal point established is that under Section 145 Cr. P.C, the magistrate's role is to determine actual possession of disputed property to prevent breach of peace, without deciding entitlement or title of the parties.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision - Disputed Land Possession - Section 145 Cr. P.C - [Section 145 Cr. P.C] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with disputes regarding possession of immovable property likely to threaten peace and public order. The court emphasized that the magistrate's role is to determine actual possession of the disputed property and prevent breach of peace, without deciding entitlement or title of the parties. The court highlighted the purpose of the provision to maintain peace and tranquility and prevent parties from using muscle power to settle disputes.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of a chunk of land, alleging interference by the respondents. The respondents were found to be in actual possession of the disputed land, leading to the petitioner filing a revision petition seeking to set aside the order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the orders of the learned Magistrate and the Revisional Court did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, and thus dismissed the revision petition.

Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of the disputed land, the application of Section 145 Cr. P.C, and the legality of the orders of the Magistrate and the Revisional Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the magistrate's role under Section 145 Cr. P.C is to determine actual possession of the disputed property and prevent breach of peace, without deciding entitlement or title of the parties.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the court found no illegality or impropriety in the orders of the Magistrate and the Revisional Court.

1. Challenge in this Criminal Revision petition is to the order dated 30.03.2002 passed by JMIC (Sub Registrar) Srinagar, in application under Section 145 Cr. P.C titled Abdul Gani Rather v. Fayaz Ahmad Khan and others (file No. 9/Misc), whereby learned Magistrate held Shri Fayaz Ahmad Khan in actual possession of disputed land measuring 1&1/2 Maria with a shed existing thereon, as on the date of preliminary order and directed Supradar (SHO) Police Station concerned to hand over possession of the disputed strip to Shri Fayaz Ahmad Khan respondent No. 1 before the Magistrate. Questioned in the revision petition is also the order of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar in Criminal Revision titled Abdul Gani Rather v. Fayaz Ahmad Khan and others (file No. I/Rev), whereby learned Revisional Court has dismissed the Revision petition and upheld the order of JMIC (Sub Registrar) dated 30.03.2002.)

2. The Criminal Revision on hand arises in the following background.

3. The petitioner on 24.01.2001 approached learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar with an application under Section 145 Cr. P. C. The application was transferred to JMIC (Sub Registrar), Srinagar for its disposal under law. The-petitioner's case was that he was owner in possession of a chunk of land measuring 5 Marias comprising Survey No. 27 Min Khewat No. 4 situated at Firdous Colony Eidgah, Srinagar; that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner through two sale deeds registered on 13.08.1977 and 31.01.1983; that about a month prior to the filing of the application, the respondents without any cause started interfering in petitioner's possession over 1&1/2 Maria out of the aforesaid chunk of land and the matter was brought to the notice of Intizamia Committee of Firdous Bagh Aali Masjid, Srinagar and the Committee in turn referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police. It was further pleaded that Superintendent of Police transmitted the matter to SHO Police Station Safakadal, who filed an application under Section 145 Cr. P. C. before Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar concerned; that Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar vide order dated 20th January, 2001, declined to entertain the matter as according to him it fell beyond his jurisdiction and advised SHO Police Station, Safakadal to approach the regular Court (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class). The petitioner complained that as SHO Police Station Safakadal ignored to move the regular Court, the respondents got emboldened, tress-passed into 1&1/2 Maria strip and by resorting to muscle power, constructed a Tin Shed on the said strip, though the petitioner had already dumped building material on the disputed property. It was further pleaded that there was threat, to the public peace and tranquility, constraining the petitioner to file application under Section 145 Cr. P.C.

4. Learned Magistrate, after preliminary order was drawn in terms of Section 145(1) Cr. P. C., issued notice to the parties to submit their written claims as regards possession of the disputed property and evidence in the shape of duly verified affidavits in support of their respective claims. On a separate application under Section 145 (4) Proviso 3, learned Magistrate attached the property and entrusted it to SHO Police Station Safakadal as Supradar of the property.

5. The parties filed their written statements as also evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents in support of their respective stands. Learned Magistrate after going through the written statements and the evidence brought on file and making a threadbare discussion of the evidence and assessing its creditworthiness, recorded satisfaction that the respondent No. 1 was in actual possession of the disputed land on the date the preliminary order dated 30.03.2002 was framed and within two months immediately there before. Resultantly, respondent Fayaz Ahamd Khan was held entitled to the possession of disputed land till he was evicted therefrom in due course of l














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top