Criminal Misc. No.M-26211 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-26211 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.7.2010 Gurbax Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Mohinder Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing the order dated 10.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum- Executive Magistrate, Kharar in criminal proceeding under Sections 145/ 146 (2) Cr.P.C.and against order dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar and directing the official respondents to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the Criminal Misc. No.M-26211 of 2008 (O&M) 2 opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum- Executive Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 10.8.2006, has held as under:- “After hearing the parties and perusal of the record brought on the file, it is observed that as per report dated 15.5.1998 sent from SDM Kharar to the Deputy Commissioner, Roopnagar, since 1996 on this land in dispute Gurbakhash Singh Dhillon etc. party was in possession. As per Kalandr dated 27.7.1998 on this lnd Kuldip Singh etc., party was in possession. SDM Kharar has also through 4.8.1998 for initiating the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and under Section 146(2) in the orders for appointing a Receiver has nowhere mentioned about the possession of any party and nor no such documents relating to Revenue Record was produced by the parties, from which it can be proved that on this land there is possession of any one party. It has also been stated by the Civil Court also that this land is Mushtarka of the owners of the village and so far as it is not partitioned, till that time none can be deemed owner of a particular number of land. Regarding this land in dispute civl litigation is also going on because due to adjoining to Chandigarh, here the land is very costly. Criminal Misc. No.M-26211 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Therefore, on this stage, without any solid proof it is not correct as per natural justice to deliver the possession of the land in dispute to any one party. Therefore, I order that the parties may get the decision of their claim/right from the competent Courts and till the order of the competent court, the earlier appointed receiver (Naib Tehsildar, Majri) will be bound to initiate the proceedings as per law.” Aggreived by the said order both the parties filed revision petitions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 25.8.2008 dismissed both the revision petitions. Para 11 of the said order reads as under:- “Both the parties have not explained as to how they are related to the land in question. There is no documentary evidence on the file regarding the title and possession of the land in question. The file of worthy Sub Divisional Magistrate indicates that the land in question is shamlat. That way, it is understanable that it is the public property. Both the parties do not explain as to in what capacity they stake their claim on the public land. Hence, I told that the worth Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly observed that the order whereby the receiveer has been appointed and possession of the land has been delivered to the receiver serves the interest of the property in Criminal Misc. No.M-26211 of 2008 (O&M) 4 question the best and that the parties, if they intend to seek possession of the land in question, must have their respective rights regarding the land in question determined from a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, I hold that both the revisions are bereft of any merits and the same are required to be dismissed.” The reasons given by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge are sound reasons. The parties had failed to produce on record any documentary evidence regarding the title and possession of the land. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the parties have failed to establish their possession over the land in dispute. The parties could get their rights determined from the Civil Court qua title/ possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any miscarriage of justice, which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 13, 2010 anita