(1) Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.377/2000. (Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another) DATE OF ORDER : May 2nd, 2007 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas ___________________________________ Mr. Manish Shishodia for the petitioner. Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, P.P. Mr. P.N. Mohnani for non-petitioner No.2. BY THE COURT : In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31.07.2000 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara (hereinafter, the revisional Court) in Criminal Revision No.24/2000, whereby the revisional Court reversed the order dated 15.07.2000 passed by Asstt. Collector, Bhilwara under Section 145, Cr.P.C. (2) Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others The facts of the case set out in the petition indicate that land measuring 21 bigha 19 biswa of Arazi No.4142 to 4154 and 4156 to 4158 in village Kareda is khatedari land of petitioner Ram Kumar and the petitioner alleges that with a view to dispossessing him from his aforesaid land, at the instance of non-petitioner No.2 the police initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. in 1991. On 21.12.1992, however, the Executive Magistrate dropped the proceedings on the ground that a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the aforesaid land is pending in the revenue Court and, therefore, parallel proceedings cannot be continued in respect of the same subject-matter and since possession of the land had been taken by the receiver in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., upon the proceedings being dropped, the possession was delivered back to the petitioner Ram Kumar on 05.01.1993. The petitioner contends in the petition that on 07.01.1993, again, with the connivance of the local police, an application was filed by non-petitioner No.2 and, upon his application, the police instituted another proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and in that proceedings an order was passed under Section 146, Cr.P.C. and, again, took possession of the land from the petitioner and appointed receiver on 25.01.1993. In the proceedings under Section 146, Cr.P.C. both the petitioner and non-petitioner No.2 filed their respective claims. The case was heard by the Asstt. Collector-cum- (3) Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Executive Magistrate and it was submitted before him that regular revenue suit for declaration and injunction and, so also, revenue proceedings regarding mutation, wherein order dated 28.07.1994 confirming the khatedari rights was under challenge in revision, are pending. These facts having been brought to the notice of the Asstt. Collector, he came to the conclusion that since 09.01.1993 nothing untoward has happened and, therefore, there is no apprehension of breach of peace and since suit for declaration is already pending the present proceedings deserve to be dropped. The learned Asstt. Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate, therefore, vide order dated 15.07.2000 dropped the proceedings and ordered delivery of possession to one from whom possession was taken. In the revision petition filed against aforesaid order dated 15.07.2000 by non- petitioner No.2, the revisional Court reversed the finding and passed impugned order dated 31.07.2000 which is under challenge in this revision petition. By way of filing an application on 28.08.2006 before this Court, it is brought to the notice of this Court that final adjudication with regard to the land in question has been made upto the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has placed on record judgment dated 21.03.2006 passed in his favour by the learned Board of Revenue and prayed before this Court that the order impugned in the present revision petition may be set aside because after judgment of the (4) Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Revenue Board dated 21.03.2006 it is crystal clear that the disputed land belongs to the petitioner and he is title-holder of the said land. It is further prayed that the order passed by the Executive Magistrate dated 15.07.2000 may be restored. While agreeing with the fact, learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the impugned order. It is prayed by learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 that in view of the judgments in the cases of Gtajendra Singh & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in RCC, September 1995, page 463, Aijaz Ahmad Fazili & Others Vs. Arshid Ahmad Maqdoomi & Another, reported in 2003 Cr.L.J. 1133 and Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntla Devi, reported in 2004 Cri.L.J. 1249 (SC), the case may be remanded to the learned Executive Magistrate before whom the petitioner can file copy of the judgment of the Board of Revenue and the Executive magistrate may be directed to decide the case finally as ordered by the revisional Court. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. In this case, when the Board of Revenue has finally decided the controversy and held the petitioner to be the title-holder of the land in question then there is no occasion to remit the case to the Executive (5) Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Magistrate for deciding afresh while taking into account the judgment of the Revenue Board for the purpose of any adjudication. At the time of passing of the impugned order, the matter was pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority and now it has been finally decided by the Board of Revenue. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in view of the fact that the matter has been finally decided in the proceedings wherein the non-petitioner himself is party, the impugned order dated 31.07.2000 is set aside the the order passed by the Executive Magistrate dated 15.07.2000 in case No.42/2000 is restored. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands allowed in terms of above order. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.