Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Grover and S.K.Kapur JJ.
Partap Singh
Versus
State Of Delhi
Criminal No. 194 of 1964,
Decided On : APRIL 6, 1965
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145 - DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - SECTION 12, 14, 15 - ACTUAL POSSESSION - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS - MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PEACE - EVACUEE PROPERTY - ALLOTTEE - FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION - SUMMARY PROCESS - BREACH OF PEACE - LEGAL RIGHT TO POSSESSION - MEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE POSSESSION - DISTINCTION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145 TO PROPERTY VESTING IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - EXEMPTION FROM PROCESS OF COURTS - MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER - SANCTITY OF SECTION 15 OF THE ACT - SUMMARY MEASURES UNDER SECTION 145 - TEMPORARY MEASURES - DETERMINATION OF ISSUES ON MERITS.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over possession of 14 plots of land, once evacuee property, acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, initiated. Magistrate held first party in actual possession on the date of preliminary order. Additional Sessions Judge quashed the proceedings, relying on a Patna decision holding Section 145 inapplicable to evacuee property. Revision petition filed.
Finding of the Court:
Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was applicable to the property acquired under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Magistrate was entitled to take proceedings under the said provision. The object of Section 145 is to bring to an end by a summary process disputes relating to properties which are likely to end in breaches of the peace. The section was enacted for the maintenance of public peace, law, and order. The fact that the property vests in the Central Government does not abrogate the provision of Section 145. Section 145 is designed to protect deprivation of possession by persons taking law into their own hands and has no concern with the determination of any legal right to possession. The Magistrate is not proceeding against any property vesting in the Central Government but is merely acting in aid of the maintenance of peace till possession is delivered to the person entitled to the same, in accordance with law. The temporary measures taken under Section 145 do not destroy the sanctity of Section 15 of the Act or any other provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
Issues: Whether Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was applicable to property acquired under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Whether the Magistrate was entitled to take proceedings under Section 145. Whether the fact that the property vests in the Central Government abrogates the provision of Section 145. Whether Section 145 is designed to protect deprivation of possession by persons taking law into their own hands. Whether the Magistrate is proceeding against any property vesting in the Central Government. Whether the temporary measures taken under Section 145 destroy the sanctity of Section 15 of the Act or any other provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is applicable to property acquired under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Magistrate is entitled to take proceedings under Section 145. The fact that the property vests in the Central Government does not abrogate the provision of Section 145. Section 145 is designed to protect deprivation of possession by persons taking law into their own hands and has no concern with the determination of any legal right to possession. The Magistrate is not proceeding against any property vesting in the Central Government but is merely acting in aid of the maintenance of peace till possession is delivered to the person entitled to the same, in accordance with law. The temporary measures taken under Section 145 do not destroy the sanctity of Section 15 of the Act or any other provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The matter was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for determination of the issues on merits.
S.K.K.apnr, J.
1. This criminal revision whicharises out of proceedings under sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, wasreferred to a Division Bench, because our learned brother Gurdev Singh J.was not inclined to agree with what His Lordship termed as a wide proposition laid down in Sayed Salahuddin Ahmed V/s. Janki Mahton andothers.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that there was somedispute regarding possession of 14 plots of land measuring in all 39 bighas14 biswas which were at one time evacuee property. Proceedings undersection 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were initated at the instance ofthe police. By his order dated the 25th of July, 1963 the learned Magistrate held that it was the first party, namely, Prabhu, Data Ram, Munshi,Ramu, Bhartu, Mohan, Roop Chand, Udmi, Budha Amar Singh, Teka andBhima who were in actual possesssion of the land in dispute on Ist ofDecember, 1962, he date of preliminary order. The Magistrate accordinglyordered the possession to be delivered to first party and directed thesecond party, namely, Partap Singh not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the first party unless the first party was evicted in accordance withlaw. The case set up by Partap Singh, the second party was, that the saidplots of land were allotted to him and Mohan Lal on 5th of January 1961by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and the possession thereof was deliveredto them by the Managing Officer on the spot on 3rd of June 1962. Itwas further contended by Partap Singe that intimation about delivery ofpossession was sent to the Tahsildar on 4th of June 1962 and entryregarding transfer of possession was made in Roznamcha on 12th of June1962. Preliminary order was passed under sec. 145 (1), Criminal. Procedure Code. on 1st of December 1962. The learned Magistrate aftergoing through the material on record held that the second party had failedto establish beyond doubt that possession over all the 14 plots was delivered to him. He further held that even if the possession of all the 14plots had been delivered on 3rd of June 1962 it was of no avail to thesecond party since the actual possession on the date of preliminary orderalone had to be taken into consideration under sec. 145, CriminalProcedure Code. In the end the learned Magistrate concluded that on 1/12/1962 the actual possession of the disputed plots was with partyNo. 1. Aggrieved by this order Partap Singh filed a revision petitionbefore the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional SessionsJudge following the decision of Sayed Salahuddin Ahmads case held thatsince the property was evacuee property the provision of sec. 145,Criminal Procedure Code, did not apply. In this view learned AdditionalSessions Judge recommended to this Court that the proceedings taken bythe trial Court under sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and the orderof the learned Magistrate made in this behalf be queashed. When thematter came before Gurdev Singh J. His Lordship expressed some doubtas to the correctness of the rule laid down in the Patna decision and asstated above the case was referred to a Division Bench. This is how thematter has come before us.
3. It is not disputed before us that the property in dispute was atone time evacuee property but was later acquired by the Central Government under sec. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)Act, 1954, and became part of the compensation pool, constituted under sec. 14 of the said Act. In view of this it is not necessary toexpress our views directly regarding the Patna decision which turns on theprovisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. We say"directly" because we have been asked to hold that the same principleapplies to properties vesting in the Central Government under sec. 12of Displaced Persons (Comensation and Rehabitation) Act 1954. thelearned Magistrate rightly held that he had for the purposes of sec. 145,Cnminal Procedure Code, to decide as to which of the parties was in actu
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
