y fh^UO v A'y--' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR <-,"> Ssi!;i!Ksalv fi^W.iSS^. •;; Coram: Hoji'ble^iri Sunil KymaLSinha & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar. JJ . Writ Appeal No. 290 of 2009 Hirendra Kumar Yadav & others Vs. Vedvyas & others ORDER For consideration Hon'ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R-L. Jhanwar Judge _P^tJor Order: ^./10/2009 Sd/- "~n—<-ruug<.»"~ /10/2009 c HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Coram: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. Writ Appeal No. 290 of 2009 APPELLANTS PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 6. Hirendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Brijraj Kumar, aged 26 years Mahendra Kumar Yadav S/o Brijraj Kumar, aged 24 years Yogendra Yadav, S/o Brijraj Kumar, aged 24 years All resident and cultivator of Village Mudpar in the Tahsil Navagarh (Shivrinarayan) Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Vs. Vedvyas S/o Umeshchand Yadav,aged 36 years Jawahar Lal S/o Umeshchand Yadav,aged 33 years Umeshchand S/o Malikram Yadav,aged 65 years All above cultivator and residents of Village Mudpar in the Tahsil Navagarh (Shivrinarayan) Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) of Chhattisgarh, the Secretary of Home Affair Administration D.K.S. Bhawan The State Through depari:ment General Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Janjgir, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Brijraj Kumar Yadav, S/o Prahalad Prasad, aged about 57 years, Cultivator and resident of Village- Mudpar, Tahsil Nawagarh, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) The Tahsildar Nawagarh (Shivrinarayan), Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) »•-»».. ?r^i':.-^ ; .»:!!;:;A ""'"•e. •,»/.-ias«ii .''•S^ f ii :.-... '& §< fc\ Writ AppealNo. 290 of2009 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 Appearance: Mr. Janak Ram Verma, counsel for the appellants. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/respondents No. 4. 5 &7 on advance copy None for the other respondents. ORDER (^ .10.2009) Following order of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 08.09.2009 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 5063/2009, by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellants/petitioners have filed this Writ Appeal. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- A proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was drawn between respondents 1 & 2 on one hand and respondent No.6 on the other hand before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.). The S.D.M. declared that respondent No.6 was in possession of the disputed property. This order was challenged by respondents 1 & 2 before the Sessions Court by filing a criminal revision, which was dismissed on 5.12.2006. Thereafter a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court vide Cr.M.P. No. 214/2006. This was allowed and order passed by the S.D.M. was set aside and it was directed to hand over the possession of disputed property to respondents 1 & 2 with further direction that respondent 1 & 2 are entitled to retain possession over the land till evicted in due course of law. It is at this stage, the petitioners, who were strangers to the above proceedings, filed W.P.(C) No. 5063/2009 for the following relief(s):- in";' v^ Writ Appeal No. 290 of2009 "10. RELIEF SOUGHT 10.1 That a direction or writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition of appropriate nature do issue and the respondents be directed not to dispossess the petitioners from aforesaid land in question (khasra No. 204 area 1.29 acre/in hectare 0.502) who are recorded Bhumiswami owners with settled possession whereas admittedly the respondents Vyasnarayan and Jawaharlal has no acquisition of title and possession in any land record for above 50 (fifty) years back. 10.2 That a direction or writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus certiorari, prohibition of appropriate nature do issue and the respondents be directed to protect statutory and constitutional right of petitioners holding ownership and possession by not misinterpreting respecting the order passed by Hon'ble High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 214/2006 order dt. 11.8.2009 in which there is no order for dispossession of the petitioners from their Bhumiswami ownership land and (bearing khasra no.204). 10.3 That a direction or writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition of appropriate nature do issue and the respondents be directed not to initiate proceedings, criminal proceedings for dispossession of petitioners from aforesaid land whereas they had not impleaded in any petition, suit or proceeding as party to the petitioners not given notice or opportunity of hearing irl aforesaid decided case before the court of sub-divisional magistrate. The Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa describe in Cr.M.P. no. 214/2006 which are under law no binding effect as well against minor co-owner Yogendra without bringing his guardian therein. fe-^ Writ Aroeal No. 290 of 2009 10.4 That despite representation demand of justice submitted by the petitioners to the respondents (Annexure P/1) despite for the illegal acts for dispossession to petitioners by putting in mental agony, harassment, torturing torts the amount of damages minimums Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand rupees) be awarded to petitioners to be paid by the respondents in joint and individual liability. 10.5 That the respondent to directed to produce entire records, documents, registers as regards aforesaid case for consideration and perusal of Hon'ble Court. 10.6 Any other relief appropriate may kindly be granted to the petitioners under above circumstances for providing substantial justice." (3) The learned Single Judge took the view that the instant petition filed by the petitioners based on the title and possession was not maintainable as disputed question of title and possession cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding as the same would require recording of evidence. Dismissing the writ petition, it was also held that the petitioners would be at liberty to establish their title by filing a civil suit in the Court of competentjurisdiction. (4) Mr. Janak Ram Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently argued that the petitioners are the recorded owners of the disputed property and are holding the possession. They were not the party before the criminal Court. However, by the aforesaid order passed in Cr.M.P., they may be dispossessed from the suit land. (5) Admittedly, disputed questions in relation to the ownership and possession vis-a-vis the petitioners are to be decided as per the ,.?,^ST' !e ^ 'I\ '''^s^'^' ^r" .^" ^ Writ Aopeal No. 290 of 2009 grievance of the petitioners and without leading evidence on such questions, the matter cannot be adjudicated. The proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. are transitory and ultimately a title based claim has to be established before a competent Court which may properly adjudicated the same and such disputed claims cannot be gone into by a writ Court, because, as stated above there would be requirement of leading evidence on this point. (6) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. (7) The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. _____— L- —, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sdi- R.L. Jhanwar Judge t-