S. No. 47

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CRMC No. 27/2017

IA No. 1/2017

Vikas Sharma

...Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Sudesh Sharma, Advocate

v/s

<

Bodh Raj

.....Respondent (s)

't

Through :- Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Rajnish Raina, Advocate

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 561-A

Cr.P.C (now 482 Cr.P.C) for quashing the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the

court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur whereby criminal revision

filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the District

Collector, Deputy Commissioner Udhampur was dismissed.

2.

A perusal of order dated 30.01.2016 reveals that the application filed by

the petitioner under section 145 Cr.P.C was dismissed for non-prosecution but

simultaneously, District Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur while

dismissing the said application restrained the applicants therein and the petitioner

herein from interfering with the land in the share of Bodh Raj-respondent herein. The

said order was assailed before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur and

vide order dated 07.01.2017, the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Udhampur has upheld the order dated 30.01.2016. It needs to be noted that while

NEHA KUMARI

2021.08.25 10:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2 CRMC No. 27/2017

dismissing the application for non-prosecution, learned District Collector, Deputy

Commissioner, Udhampur, has no jurisdiction to grant any reverse injunction.

3.

Mr. Sudesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

while dismissing the application vide order dated 30.01.2016, the District Collector,

Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur has no jurisdiction to restrain the petitioner from

interfering with the land in the share of Bodh Raj-respondent.

4.

Mr. J. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr. Rajnish

Raina, Advocate are not averse to the deletion of the said direction.

5.

In view of what has been discussed above, the direction of restraining

the petitioner from interfering in land in the share of Bodh Raj-respondent is

quashed. The parties are left free to raise their respective claims in the suit those are

already pending before the trial court.

6.

The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL)

JUDGE

JAMMU

24.08.2021

Neha

Whether the order is speaking:

Yes/No

Whether the order is reportable:

Yes/No

NEHA KUMARI

2021.08.25 10:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document