IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9770 of 2008. Date of Decision : 18.7.2011. Tarlochan Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thanesar & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir S. Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Tarlochan Singh-petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated March 28th, 2008 (Annexure P-12) passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thanesar whereby he attached the land measuring 61 kanals under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and appointed Tehsildar, Thanesar as Receiver for management of the land. 2. On February 18th, 2006, Tarlochan Singh entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 58 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Josar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra with Makhan Lal-respondent No.4 (Annexure P-2). On April 10th, 2006 out of the said land, he sold 10 kanals to Makhan Lal vide sale deed (Annexure P-3). A civil suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell (Annexure P-2) is pending in Civil Court, Kurukshetra. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 had made a statement on January 20th, 2009 as find mentioned in the order passed by this Court which reads as under:- “Counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 states that the dispute in the present case is only confined to the land measuring 10 kanals.” 4. He has further urged that on January 12th, 2010 Makhan Lal has already sold the aforesaid land measuring 10 kanals to one Surinder Singh vide sale deed (Annexure P-18). 5. In view of this, the dispute between the parties was only qua 10 kanals of land. Since 10 kanals of land has already been sold to respondents No.3 and 4 so, apprehension of breach of peace by the parties no more exists. 6. In view of this, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated Mach 28th, 2008 (Annexure P-12) is set aside. As a result, proceedings under Section 145 and 146 of the Code are quashed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 18.7.2011. SN