Mata Ram vs Phool Chand

R.P. Khosla, J.

This is a reference from District Magistrate, Narnaul.

Upon an application dated 8th of July, 1963 at the instance of present petitioner proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated. On 22nd of August, 1963 preliminary order attaching the land and directing the parties to put in evidence supporting their rival claims was made, After necessary evidence by way of affidavits and other documentary material put in, the learned Magistrate on 31st of August, 1964 concluded that there was danger of breach of peace, and that the respondent was in possession of land in dispute two months prior to the preliminary order. It was thus directed that possession of the land be made over to respondent. The applicant while challenging the said order of the Magistrate dated 31st of August, 1984 took the matter in revision before the District Magistrate. The other material apart, the real basis of the impugned order were Khasra Girdawari entries from 1961 to the date of the application relating to the land in dispute. These entries indicated that the owner respondent had been in cultivating possession. The applicant had by specific averments set out challenged the authenticity of these entries. In fact, he had moved the Revenue Court for correction of them which finally in appeal before the appellate Revenue Court had been corrected favouring the tenant-applicant. The District Magistrate on that score held in the instant revision that the Khasra Girdawari entries relied upon by the learned Magistrate had been manipulated at the instance of the respondent owner. The reasonings advanced for the conclusions arrived at were cogent and convincing and I wholly concur. The corrected Khasra Girdawaris read to show that at the relevant time the applicant was in possession. Apparently in that state of the evidence the impugned order of the Magistrate could not sustain. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that interference on reappraisal of the evidence was not warranted. It is necessary to point out that the case is not of appraising evidence anew but, one of calling interference in conclusions ill-based because spurious material had been taken into account. I would, therefore, affirm the reference and amend and modify the order of the learned Magistrate to read that the applicant was in. possession of the land in dispute at all relevant times and that he be restored possession thereof.