Sultan and others vs State of Haryana and others

J.B. Garg, J.

Sultan, Rulia Ram and Jagdish have moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging FIR No. 512 dated 19.10.1992 for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station City, Sirsa.

Briefly, the facts as alleged are that the petitioners had been tenants on the agricultural land in question for the last more than 42 years and an entry in this regard continues from the Jamabandi for the year 195051, which is Annexure P.1. The petitioners have alleged that a dispute arose regarding ownership in respect of alleged removal of the trees that the petitioners had been planting trees as well and not that the alleged removal of trees by the petitioner could constitute an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in the circumstances of the case.

In a reply dated 14.8.1993 filed on behalf of the respondents it has been averred that the issue of occupancy rights was earlier decided in favour of the petitioners by the Assistant Collector but the Collector in appeal has decided it in favour of the respondents on 3.2.1993. However, this court while deciding RSA No. 146 of 1992 on 24.11.1992 has held that there could be no for for feiture of tenancy on disclaimer of title by the tenant when he only pleaded occupancy rights. A perusal of copy of Jamabandi for the year 195051 Annexure P 1 shows that in the column of cultivation the name of Ramu predecessorin interest of the petitioners find mention.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Sheesham trees in question were the outcome of the tenancy rights which the petitioners possess and had been exercising for the last more that 42 years. In support of this contention Rup Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and another, Revenue Rulings 75 has been referred to wherein R.S. Narula, J. (as he then was) while disposing of writ petition Nos. 556 and 556 of 1966, has held that agriculture is a term of wider import and keeping it in view the petitioners could not be considered having committed theft of the produce now in question notwithstanding it was in the form of trees. The conclusion is that the present petition succeeds and FIR in question registered against the petitionerstenants, hereby quashed. The case property shall be returned to the person from whom it was recovered.