High CourtsSingle Bench(1997) 07 J&K CK 0017

Gulla Mir and Others vs Nazir Ahmad Mir and Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 14 July 1997 · Citation: (1998) CriLJ 3544

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Q. Parray, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 561-A in Revision Petition No. 16 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 540 words

Mb. Qadir Parray, J.—Heard Mr. Mehraj at length in these proceedings u/s 561-A, Cr.P.C.

2.

Mr. Mehraj tried to project that learned Addl. District Magistrate, Kupwara has not passed the order in accordance with the procedure and the

statute. He had in fact procured information/ reports from his subordinate agencies right up from the rank of Tehsildar, Girdawar down to the level

of Patwari and on the basis of that information, learned Magistrate, respondent No. 6 has assumed jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section

145, Cr.P.C. and issued notices to all the concerned including the non-applicants to put in their respective claims and documents as respect of fact

of actual possession of the subject of dispute.

3.

learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the matter was not one of emergency, but even then the learned Additional District

Magistrate has attached the property on spot when there are crops standing in the land in dispute and it is only to deprive the non-applicants

before the trial Magistrate of their usufructs when in fact revenue records do show them in possession and despite this, the Magistrate has assumed

the jurisdiction.

4.

The arguments projected by Mr. Mehraj while assailing the order and projecting that there has been misuse of powers of the Court and the

learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order which has resulted in the misuse of process of Court.

5.

After perusal of the file and the submissions made by Mr. Mehraj, I do not find that his contention is well founded, firstly on the count that the

learned Magistrate has assumed jurisdiction not provided under the statute and the procedure. In fact the Magistrate has sought report from

subordinate agencies including Patwari, Girdawar and Naib Tehsildar just to substantiate and verify the situation as existing on spot and on that

basis of that verification/report, the Magistrate has shown his satisfaction as to why he has proceeded u/s 145(1) of Cr.P.C.

6.

Furthermore the Magistrate having come to the conclusion that the matter being of emergency as per reports received, has passed the impugned

order under Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Cr.P.C. and attached the subject-matter of dispute. The local Magistrate is the master, of the

situation. He knows as to what are the matters of emergency which have arisen in his territorial jurisdiction on the basis of report submitted to him

by his subordinate agencies and the grounds of such satisfaction. I do not find that there is arty irregularity done by the learned Magistrate resulting

in the misuse of process of Court. However, I would be anxious and would like that the Magistrate will proceed effectively in the matter in

accordance with law and the procedure and see to it that the Supurdar shall take all care of the properties, reap the crops and will pass

appropriate orders as per the pleadings and other projections to be made by the parties and as per documents to be produced by the parties. The

learned Magistrate shall also ensure that the orders passed by him regarding entrustment of the property to the supurdar is implemented in letter

and spirit, and shall expedite the disposal of the matter finally.

With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of.