SBCRLMP No.1630/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1630/2010. Ram Sahay Vs. Gordhan & Ors. Date of order : 2/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Girish Khandelwal for petitioner. Shri G.S. Rathore for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Nitin Jain for respondents No.3 and 4. ****** BY THE COURT:- This criminal misc.petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the consequential order dated 5/8/2010 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bonli District Sawai Madhopur in compliance with the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 20/7/2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur by the said order has set- aside the earlier order dated 23/3/2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bonli District Sawai Madhopur in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was pursuant to the order dated 23/3/2010 that Tehsildar Bonli was appointed as Receiver over the agriculture land in question bearing Khasra Nos.102, 103, 106, 107, 109, 110, SBCRLMP No.1630/10. 2 111, 155, 183, 396 and 162/421 in Village Gudla River. Petitioner participated in the auction and was granted the license to cultivate that land, being the highest bidder for consideration of Rs.2,90,400/-. Auction was conducted on 27/5/2010 and it was for a period of one year. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner was put in possession of the agriculture land on 17/6/2010 and the period of one year commenced from that date. Resultant situation now according to the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has by making investment, cultivated the land and that when time has come for harvesting of the crop, learned S.D.O. has passed the order directing that entries with regard to appointment of Tehsildar as Receiver be struck off from the revenue record and petitioner is facing of apprehension of dispossession. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4 also submits that learned S.D.O. has not passed any order on his own but he has merely passed the consequential order dated 5/8/2010 which is merely in consequence of the order of appointment of Tehsildar passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 20/7/2010. Since petitioner has not challenged the order dated 20/7/2010, he cannot SBCRLMP No.1630/10. 3 question the correctness of the order dated 5/8/2010. It is contended that main proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. stood revived by the order of appointment of Tehsildar for which, a separate order is required to be passed by the S.D.O. by making compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. in terms of the observation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 does not oppose the prayer of the petitioner to the limited period of one year and urge that he may be allowed to retain in possession. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the situation has arisen in the present case owing to the order of appointment of Tehsildar passed by the revisional court, but then petitioner cannot be blamed for this situation because he bonafidely participated in the auction by depositing Rs.2,90,400/-, being the highest bidder and was allowed to cultivate the land for a period of one year. He came in possession of the land on 17/6/2010. It would not be beneficial for any of the parties in case petitioner is not allowed to continue cultivating the land as standing crops in SBCRLMP No.1630/10. 4 that case are likely to go waste. Deposited amount in any case would abide by the final order that may be passed by the competent authority in accordance with law. In the facts of the case, it is directed that petitioner shall be entitled to retain possession of the disputed land for a period of one year for duration of Samwat 2067 or for the period for which auction was originally made in terms of stipulation contained in the auction notice. On expiry of such period, Tehsilar or any other authority or person as may be specified by the S.D.O. concerned, would be entitled to take possession of the land. Subsequently, S.D.O. would be entitled to pass any such order which he deem fit in accordance with law. This misc.petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCRLMP No.1630/10. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.1502/2010. in S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1630/2010. Ram Sahay Vs. Gordhan & Ors. Date of order : 2/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Girish Khandelwal for applicant-petitioner. Shri G.S. Rathore for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Nitin Jain for respondents No.3 and 4. ****** BY THE COURT:- Consequent upon disposal of the main petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil