Crl. Misc. No. M- 34222 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 34222 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 22, 2010 Shiv Dutt Sharma ........Petitioner Versus Darshna Kumari and others ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide which he modified the order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellanabad, attaching the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that revision petition filed by the respondents before the Additional Sessions Judge was not maintainable. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for quashing the impugned order is made out. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same was passed on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M- 34222 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Paras 4 to 6 of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge read as under :- “4. Today this case was fixed for arguments but Sh. L.D.Mehta learned counsel for respondent No.1, has appeared and made statement to the effect that respondent No.1 has to dispute with the revisionists regarding the land on which they have built up their house rather he is having dispute only with Rajesh Kumar regarding 1 kanal 12 marlas being 32/10699 share of 534 kanal 19 marlas comprised khewat No.3262 Khatuni No.3669 to 3697 which is sold by Rajesh Kumar being power of attorney of Sharda and Santosh to Gopal Singh and Balwant. As Sharda and Santosh were not owner in possession of the dispute land. In this regard mutation No.13503 was sanctioned in their favour on 11.02.2005 which has been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. Land measuring 1 kanals 12 marlas sold by Smt. Santosh to Gopal and Balwant, the attachment of the same, be kept in operation. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 28.12.2000 shows that it has been passed qua land of khasra No.764. It is nowhere mentioned that land of the revisionists has been left from the operation of impugned order dated 23.01.2008 as per statement suffered by learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant Shiv Dutt. 6. Keeping in view the above discussion, reasons set out, in the view of the statement made by learned counsel for Crl. Misc. No. M- 34222 of 2010 (O&M) 3 respondent No.1, the impugned order is modified up to the extent that property owned by the revisionists is exempted from the operation of the said order. Accordingly impugned order stands modified and remaining part of order shall be in operation. In this way, the present revision is hereby disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 12.10.2010. Concerned Court record be sent back alongwith copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to the record room.” Thus, the counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that the petitioner had no dispute qua the land on which Smt. Darshana Kumari, Rajesh Kumar and Desh Raj had built their houses. The dispute was only qua 1 kanal 12 marlas and 19 marlas of land which had been sold by Rajesh Kumar on the basis of attorney executed in his favour by Sarda and Santosh to Gopal Singh and Balwant as Sarda and Santosh were not owner in possession of the land in dispute. Since the order has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground is made warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, no objection was raised by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge qua maintainability of the petition. Dismissed. (SABINA) November 22, 2010 JUDGE Anand