1

CRMP No.29 of 2022

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRMP No.29 of 2022

1. Tameshwar Sahu S/o Dujram Sahu Aged About 32 Years

2. Maniram Sahu, S/o Dujram Sahu Aged About 22 Years

3. Nemichand Sahu S/o Dujram Sahu Aged About 20 Years

All R/o Village-Dhaurabhatha, Tehsil-Palari, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Shrimati Durpati Bai W/o Chirakhan Mandhlekar, Sarpanch,

Gram Panchayat, village-Dhaurabhatha, Tehsil-Palari,

District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

2. Khelawan Sahu S/o Bhojram Sahu Village-Dhaurabhatha,

Tehsil- Palari, District- Balodabazar - Bhatapara,(C.G.)

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate-

Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar - Bhatapara,(C.G.)

---- Respondents

For Petitioners

Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate

For Respondents No.1&2

Mr. Amartya Rajwade, Advocate

For Respondent/State

Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

12-4-2022

1.

Present petition is against the order dated 21-12-2021

(Annexure-P/6) passed by the Third Additional Sessions

Judge, Balodabazar, in Cr. Rev.No.52/21 whereby the order

2

CRMP No.29 of 2022

of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Balodabazar dated

12-11-2021 (Anneuxre-P/5) passed under Section 146 (1)

Cr.P.C. has been affirmed.

2.

Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner No.1 is claiming

himself as bhumiswami of land bearing khasra No.206/54

area 0.162 hectares and khasra No.206/58 area 0.186

hectares, total area admeasuring 0.348 hectares. Likewise,

the petitioners No.2 & 3 are also claiming themselves as

bhumiswami of land bearing khasra No.273/14 area 1.618

hectares. With regard to their respective claim, the

petitioners rely on Form B-1 kistband katoni [year 2019-20]

{Annexure-P/1).

3.

To consider the said claim of the petitioners, the SDM vide its

memo dated 20-10-2021 (Annexure-P/3) directed the

Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Palari and Station

House Officer, Police Station Gidhpuri to submit the enquiry

report. In compliance of the same, it was reported that prior

to two months of incident the petitioners were in possession

of the subject land. In the meanwhile, the petitioner

Tameshwar Sahu filed a civil suit bearing No.54-A/2021 and

the petitioners Maniram & Nemichand filed a civil suit

bearing No.55-A/2021 for declaration of title against the

3

CRMP No.29 of 2022

respondents. In the said suits, status quo order was passed on

14-12-2021 (Annexure-P/4). Subsequently, on 12-11-2021

(Annexure-P/5) the SDM has passed the order that since there

is a dispute with respect to possession and chance of breach

of peace, the crop/paddy was directed to be kept under the

custody of Kotwar.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that only on

apprehension of breach of peace, the order under Section

146(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be passed. There has to be substantial

material on record and the Court below failed to appreciate

the fact that there was no material on record to show that

whether there was any emergency exist or not. Thus, the

impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1

& 2 while supporting the impugned orders would submit that

the land on which the claim is made by the petitioners is, in

fact, the Government land and hence the petitioners are not

entitled to any relief.

6.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the papers annexed with the petition.

4

CRMP No.29 of 2022

7.

The order of learned SDM dated 12-11-2021 records that

since the petition under Section 145 (1) is pending and

without there being any enquiry, no finding can be arrived as

to who had sow the crop, as such, since it may lead to

dispute, crop of the subject land would be seized. The

revisional Court affirmed the said order.

8.

With respect to prima facie ownership of the land the

petitione