Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Title of Shri Dilbagh Rai Mahant Gaddi Nashin of Langar Jaspal Bangar to 120 Kanals 11 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra Nos 13/6/1,6/27, 8/1, 13/2, 16/1, 17, 14/24, 25, 10, 11, 20, 21, 16/1, 17/5 and 6 situated in village Garib Nagri Tehsil and district Ludhiana was finally decided by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in his favour in Civil Appeal No. 1113N 969 decided on 10th January, 1980 vide Annexure P2.

Actual physical possession of this land was delivered to Dilbagh Rai on 12th March, 1987 vide report in Roznamcha Annexure P.5 Factual position regarding Shri Dilbagh Rai being in actual physical possession of the disputed lands through his attorney Manjit Singh was duly verified by Naib Tehsildar on the spot on 12th June, 1990 and confirmed in order Annexure P.6 dated 18th June 1990. Title and possession of Sh.Dilbagh Rai over the land is dispute is, therefore, fully settled by the Apex Court of the country. Factual possession in this regard was reported by the police in Police Station, Sadar, Ludhiana, on 12th October,1990 vide Annexure P.8.

In spite of it, learned Executive Magistrate Ludhiana, vide order Annexure P.10 initiated 145, Criminal Procedure Code proceeding in respect of this land on 17th October, 1990 and vide order Annexure P.11 of the same date attached the lands in dispute and appointed Mr. Amarjit Singh, Tehsildar, Ludhiana, as Receiver of these lands. Cr. M.No. 13793M of 1990 has been filed by the aggrieved party for quashing the orders annexure SP. 10 and P.11 as wholly without jurisdiction.

I have heard Shri Sumeet Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri B.S.Gill, A.S.G.Punjab for respondent No.1, Shri J.S.Wasu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. C.L.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 and have carefully pursued the record .

In almost identical circumstances in Milkha Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 191 this Court held :

Held, that in a society governed by rule of law, decisions of Courts in forums provided under the law are meant to be respected and kept enforced in the larger interest of the State, towards maintenance of law and order. Now here is an irate litigant, who having lost in the civil court after deep contest with regard to the possession of land, instead of acclamatizing himself to the order passed by Court turns around and wants the dispute to be unsettled with the aid of the police under section 145.

The moment the learned Magistrate was informed of the existence of the civil Court''s final judgment and decree it was then incumbent on him to take other steps of preventive/remedial nature to prevent breach of peace and not to swoop like an eagle and take the catch away by effecting attachment of the land as also the standing crop the fruits of someone''s labour. The mechanical way in which the provisions of sections 145 and 146, Criminal Procedure Code, have been employed are further revealed from the order passed under the latter section for the attachment has been ordered to be kept till the matter is settled by a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction, that such a decree is their is undisputable.

The upshot of the above discussion is that the present proceedings are in the nature of an abuse of the process of Court and accordingly the proceedings as also the impugned orders have got to be and are hereby setaside."

For the reasons given above, Criminal Misc. No 13793M of 1990 succeeds and is allowed, impugned orders Annexure P.10 and P.11 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ludhana, are both quashed.