JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the order dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P4) passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad; order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P2) passed by SDM, Ballabgarh in case No.12/SDM dated 16.06.2023 under Section 145 CrPC, Muja Fatehpur Billoch, Teshil Ballabgarh filed by respondent No.l.

2. Briefly stated that the petitioner along with other co-sharers are stated to be the joint owner and in possession of agriculture land measuring 230 kanals, situated within the revenue estate of Village Fatehpur Billoch, District Faridabad vide jamabandi for the year 2021- 22. The said land was not partitioned by metes and bounds between the co-sharers, however, one of the co-sharer namely Ranbir Singh illegally and unlawfully without getting the land partitioned sold the land measuring 4 kanals out of above said land to previous owner namely Smt. Sharmila Devi wife of Kapil Parashar without knowledge and consent of petitioner and other co-sharers vide sale deed dated 12.1.2017. The purchaser Sharmila Devi further sold the said 4 kanals land to Lalta vide sale deed dated 15.11.2022, who alongwith her son Subhash and Shrikrishan came to the said land and tried to take forcible possession of the land. Thereafter, respondent No.l namely Sri Krishan moved an application against the petitioner and other 18 co-sharers to respondent No.2 who called them in the police station and threatened to hand over the possession of the land in question to Smt. Lalta and accordingly, respondent no.2 filed a DD No.16 dated 15.6.2023 under section 145 Cr.P.C. before SDM, Ballabgarh regarding attachment of the entire land measuring 230 kanals. On the said DD, the SDM, Ballabgarh issued summons to the petitioner and other 18 co-sharers without observing that both the sale deeds were executed only qua land measuring 4 kanals but SHO of P.S. Sadar Ballabgarh in collusion with Smt. Lalta, Smt. Sharmila, Subhash and Sri Krishan attached the entire land in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-revisionist averred that the kalendra under section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner alleging that he has breached the peace, however, no such evidence has been placed by the respondents in this regard. He submits that the petitioner-revisionist is a co-sharer over the disputed land which is still in joint possession and no partition has ever taken place by metes and bounds and despite that one of the co-sharer Ranvir executed a sale deed in favour of Sharmila wife of Kapil Parashar vide Annexure R-2, without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and other co-owners of the disputed land and even thereafter, Sharmila has further sold the disputed land measuring 4 kanals to Smt. Lalta vide Annexure R-3. He then submits that co-sharer Ranbir has given a specific possession by way of above mentioned sale deed whereas he cannot do so unless the partition of land takes place. He urged that the concerned Patwari has also conducted the demarcation and proved the possession of the petitioner.

4. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner is in continuous cultivating possession over the disputed land and son of Lalta namely Subhash and Sri Krishan are illegally trying to take the forceful possession of the said land in collusion with the police and they have managed to lodge false FIR against his sons in order to harass the petitioner. He submits that the land in dispute cannot be interfered with in view of the fact that a complaint to the police along with a civil suit against the sale deeds dated 12.1.2017 and 15.11.2022 respectively are still pending.

5. Another argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the total land is measuring 230 kanals and the dispute is regarding 4 kanals only whereas the SDM Ballabgarh vide impugned order has attached the entire land illegally and arbitrarily while recording an absolutely contradictory finding