Crl. Misc. No.M-36934 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-36934 of 2009 (O&M). Decided on: October 01, 2010. Suresh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG., Haryana. Mr.Anil Ghangas, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 11. Mr.Shashi Bhushan, Advocate, for Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate, for respondent No.12. M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner through the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks a direction to the State Authorities to protect his . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-36934 of 2009 (O&M) life and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos.3 & 4. The petitioner claims that uncle of the petitioner Chander was in possession of part of the land measuring 70' X 32' and after his death his adopted son Surinder who is the real brother of the petitioner has been in possession of the land for the last 50 years. The petitioner claims that an agreement of sale was entered into between the petitioner and the Vaid Family Charitable Trust on 03.09.2009, regarding 70' X 85' of land and the possession was handed over to the petitioner after the payment of entire sale consideration. The petitioner claims that respondent Nos.5 to 11, had broke open the house of the petitioner and took away the household articles. In support of the said contention, few photographs of the debris have been placed on record. The allegations have been denied by the respondents. A photocopy of the judgment of Civil Court has been placed on record in which the name of the petitioner does not find mention. Since the petitioner claims right in property on the basis of an agreement of sale which as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not confer any title on any party. The petitioner has got an alternative remedy to protect his rights as a subsequent purchaser on the basis of agreement of sale. As per the provisions of Sections 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the agreement of sale itself does not create any interest in or charge on property. The petitioner has not been able to establish that on the basis of agreement of sale and his possession, he has filed any suit for specific performance to improve his title on the property. In the . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-36934 of 2009 (O&M) absence of any substantive evidence before this Court regarding the ownership and charge or interest on the house, it will not be appropriate to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As the dispute appears to be pertaining to property, exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to determine the property rights of the parties. The application submitted by the petitioner to the police has also been looked into and it has been found that no cognizable offence has been committed. The petitioner has got a legal remedy available to him to establish his ownership in the property in dispute and to file a complaint in case he feels that the police has not taken any action. The petition is disposed of leaving the petitioner to avail the alternative remedies available to him. However, it is observed that this order will not permit the private respondents to commit any breach of peace or take law in their own hands. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 01, 2010. rka . . . 3