Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C are meant for maintaining law and order, and possession should not be disturbed until a decision of a competent civil court.

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

1. The petitioner-Bhajan Singh son of Nirmal Singh was co-owner alongwith his brother, Jagdish Singh son of Nirmal Singh of 58 kanals of land situated in three villages i.e. Jhang, Jamalpur and Puro Chalk. In village Jhang, the land jointly owned was to the extent of 16 kanals, in village Jamalpur to the extent of another 16 kanals and in Puro Chalk to the extent of 26 kanals. Vide separate sale deeds dated 11.03.2013, respondent Nos.5 and 6 purchased the share of Jagdish Singh son of Nirmal Singh in all three villages. Respondent No.6-Kanchan wife of Kamal Dev purchased 7 kanals and 6 marlas in village Jhang and respondent No.5-Raj Rani wife of Prem Singh, purchased 8 kanals in village Jamalpur as well as 12 kanals and 12 marlas in village Puro Chalk. The sale deeds placed on record show that the sale was of shares and not of specific khasra number.

2. It appears that respondent Nos.5 and 6 sought partition of the joint land with the petitioner and other co-sharers. Soon after the purchase of land, the learned Assistant Collector First Grade, settled the mode of partition, vide separate orders dated 05.04.2016, in respect of each of the three villages. The petitioner challenged the same vide appeal, which was dismissed. His revision petition has however, been entertained by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and stay of partition proceedings has been granted. It is also relevant to point out that it is recorded in the sale deeds that physical possession was handed over to the vendees on the date of the sale deed.

3. Thereafter, on the application of respondent No.4, the police prepared Kalandra dated 31.05.2017, under Section 145 Cr.P.C and submitted it in the Court of the Executive Magistrate. The petitioner filed his reply and vide order dated 25.09.2017, the learned Executive Magistrate ordered the attachment of the land in dispute under Section 146 Cr.P.C. and appointed a Receiver.

4. Order dated 25.09.2017, is under challenge in the present petition.

5. A perusal of the Kalendara under Section 145 Cr.P.C. shows that the case of respondent No.4 was that a total of 28 kanals land was purchased by the vendees in three different villages. Possession was taken by them and thereafter, the petitioner viz. Bhajan Singh forcefully dispossessed them and was not ready to permit the vendees to take possession of their land. Moreover, specific khasra numbers are mentioned in the said Kalendra and not shares, as mentioned in the sale deed. A perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner to the said Kalendra as well as the present petition show that his case is that the vendees want to take possession of the land purchased by them in one village only, which would result in their taking possession of more share than they are entitled to and thus, deprive the petitioner of his land. It is also his case that partition is in progress and that on finalization of the same, the vendees can take possession of the land which comes to their share. The petitioner is in possession of his own share and he cannot be deprived of his possession except by way of partition. There is no dispute between the parties and the petitioner is peacefully cultivating his share of land, but the vendees are trying to use their influence to take possession of the entire land measuring 28 kanals, purchased by them in one village without partition.

6. Reply has been filed only on behalf of the State of Haryana. The stand taken therein is identical to the stand of private respondents taken in the Kalandra i.e. the petitioner has taken possession of the entire joint property and is not allowing the vendees to take possession of their share.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.09.2017, is not sustainable in law because Section 145 Cr.P.C. only vests power in Executive Magistrate, to determine the party in possession of land in dispute. It does not entitle him to determine right of possession, whic