1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Vijay Kumar & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1174/2010 S.B. Criminal Revision Under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Date of Order :: November 12, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Gaurav Gupta for the petitioners. Mr. Piyush Kumar PP for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25th October, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ('the SDM', for short), wherein the SDM had appointed a receiver over the disputed land. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2008, the SHO, Police Station, Mundawar, submitted a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C, before the Court of SDM, Mundawar, District Alwar. According to the police, there is a disputed land, bearing Khasra 2 No.341/0.64, 149, 150, 151, 152 Rakba 0.81 Ayre situated in village Birod, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar. With regard to the said land, the petitioners and the respondents are having their own disputes regarding its ownership and possession. Therefore, it was requested that the disputed property should be attached and a receiver should be appointed to look after the disputed land. The learned SDM issued the notices to both the parties. After the service upon both the parties, reply was submitted by them, and the evidence was recorded. After hearing both the sides, vide order dated 16.07.2010, the learned SDM attached the property and appointed the Tehsildar Mundawar as the receiver. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the learned SDM, the non-petitioners filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. The learned Judge allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dated 16.07.2010, and remanded the matter to the concerned SDM for fresh decision. Hence, this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that both the parties are claiming to be in possession of the land and there is a distinct possibility of breach of peace. Therefore, the learned SDM was justified in appointing the Tehsildar as a receiver. 3 However, the learned Judge has erred in setting aside the said order ostensibly on the ground that the petitioners has admitted that the respondents were in possession of the land and the stay application filed before the Revenue Court has been dismissed. He further contends that in case the receiver is not re-appointed, there is a grave possibility of a dispute erupting between the parties. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that once it is admitted that the respondents are in possession, once it is admitted that the stay application moved by the petitioners has been dismissed, there is no occasion to appoint the Tehsildar as a receiver. Moreover, the learned Judge has remanded the case back to the SDM for his decision. For, according to the learned Judge, the SDM has ignored certain pieces of evidence which were readily available on record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that in para 12 of the impugned order, the learned Judge has recorded the fact that according to the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the SDM, he had noticed that the stay application filed by the petitioners was not only 4 dismissed, but had also come to the conclusion that, indeed, the respondents are in possession of the land, as admitted by the petitioners in his cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that despite overwhelming evidence being available on record, the SDM should not have appointed the Tehsildar as a receiver. Hence, he was equally justified in remanding the case back to the SDM. Thus, the petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. However, the SDM is directed to decide the case at the earliest. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-