Deepak Agrawal vs Smt. Uma Bai Mehto

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants by this revision have challenged the order dated 29.6.2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Revision No. 137/2005 whereby the order dated 30.6.2005 passed by the SDM Itarsi in Criminal Case No. 10/2004 relating to seizure of the property u/s 146(1) of Cr.P.C. is set aside.

The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey No. 558/01 and 551 total area 1.41 hectare was a land in dispute situated at Village Mehargaon. There was a dispute between the parties about the possession, and therefore a complaint u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. was lodged before the SDM Itarsi. The learned SDM Itarsi has directed that there is a possibility of quarrel between the parties on the basis of possession, and therefore the property be attached and a receiver be appointed. In this context, the Tahsildar Itarsi had given a report dated 28.6.2005, whereas the SHO Itarsi has also given memo dated 28.6.2005 of spot inspection.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that since last eight years possession of the applicants/present respondents was established, and therefore opposite party could not take forceful possession of the property. There was no dispute, and therefore the respondents could not be dispossessed. Hence the order passed by the learned SDM was set aside.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the impugned order was passed in the year 2006 and seven years are also passed. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the respondents are in possession of the property in last seven years. Therefore, it would not be proper that they may be dispossessed at this stage. It is for the parties to knock the door of the Civil Court to get the ownership of the property be decided. In the meantime, no interference can be done in the possession. Under such circumstances, there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the order passed by the revisionary court by this Court. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicants cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed by maintaining the impugned order. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as revisionary court for information and compliance.