C.W.P. No.19828 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19828 of 2011 Date of Decision.20.10.2011 Sajjan Singh son of Shri Moji Ram caste Jat resident of Madina District Rohtak and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for a mandamus to deliver possession of property, which according to the petitioner was taken possession of by the State authorities at the time when the Executive Magistrate passed an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C to maintain peace. The petitioner had challenged this order before this Court in a Crl. Misc. No.45698 of 2006 contending that there was already a civil suit pending between the parties and once the parties were in lease in relation to the same property, the intervention through an order by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C was not maintainable. This Court accepted that contention and quashed the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 19.03.2008. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that the property, which was taken possession under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is still being retained by the State C.W.P. No.19828 of 2011 -2- authorities and they would not deliver back possession. The petitioner seeks, therefore, mandamus to deliver possession against respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3. The order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. read with Section 146 merely attaches the disputed land namely a street measuring 20 feet wide in front of the house constructed in New Karan Vihar, Sector 6, HUDA along with "green belt" and the vacant land bearing Khasra No.7555, 7557 Kasba Karnal and had appointed Tehsildar Karnal to take care of disputed land. I cannot understand this expression to be handing over possession of the property. A direction by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which ensured that the parties do not change the status quo and they shall not take possession of the same and put up any construction, ought not to be understood that State itself was taking possession. The intervention, which was sought through the District Magistrate was in a dispute between two individuals where there was an apprehended breach of peace. This order, however, was quashed in view of civil proceedings between the same private parties. If the petitioner is prevented in any way from putting up construction, he will have appropriate remedy before the Civil Court where the case is already pending. The order of the District Magistrate has been quashed by the Court and it is open to the petitioner to make representation to any of the respondents bringing home the fact that in a private dispute between the parties, the State itself shall not have any stake on the private property. I find that first the petitioner has made a representation to the Naib Tehsildar, Karnal to deliver possession of the property with the help of police. Such a requirement is not even C.W.P. No.19828 of 2011 -3- necessary, for the order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. read with Section 146 itself does not contemplate taking up possession by the State. I do not find any material for making inference that the property is being usurped or taken possession by the State authorities to grant any relief to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of at the stage of admission as unnecessary to grant any relief as sought for. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 20, 2011 Pankaj*