IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS/ APPLICANTS P.R. (to......s^.: Presented by Shri ., Oateci..........•&.(/.^. NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS Cr.M.P. N0. .5^ /2011 1. Kaushal S/o Kanhaiya Deshmukh, aged about 55 years. 2. Rambha Devi W/o Kanhaiya Deshmukh, aged about 80 years. 3. Anil Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Deshmukh, aged about 42 years. 4. Bhavendra S/o Kanhaiya Deshmukh, aged about 45 years. 5. Bhartiya Devi, D/o Kanhaiya Deshmukh, aged about 52 years. 6. Arun Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Deshraukh, aged about 68 years. 7. Kaushliya Devi D/o Kanhaiya Deshmukh, aged about 54 years. All are resident of viUage Pinkapar, - Tahsil Doundilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Wam.an S/o Bhuneshwar Gadariya, aged about 40 years. 2. Bhuneshwar S/o Chaifa-am, aged about 68 years. 3. Khorbahrin wife of Bhuneshwar, aged about 60 years. 4. Durdeshi S/o Narad Halba, aged about 50 years.. 5. Sunita W/o Waman Gadariya, aged about 35 years. All are resident of Village Pinkapar, Tahsil Doundilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 4S20F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 •^ir, ^o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinfl!e Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioners/Applicants Non-apDlicants/ Respondents Cr.M.P.No.528/2011 Kaushal and others Versus Waman and others Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri Santosh Yadu, counsel for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 21-09-2011) Heard. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 12-06-2008 passed in Criminal Revision No.343 of 2002 by the Revisional Court, by which, order dated 07-06-2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 ofthe Cr.P.C., has been affirmed. 3. In the matter of dispute relating to agricultLiral land, the petitioners moved an application under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dondilohara alleging that the petitioners had sown the crop and remained in possession ofthe land since 1999, but the respondents have started interfering with their possession and they have also cut the standing crop, and thus, a dispute relating to possession of property has arisen, which is likely to cause breach of peace, and therefore, possession be protected by restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession. The reply was filed by the respondents by stating that they are in possession of the property and further that because of some error in the settlement records, the petitioners taking undue advantage are claiming title over the property in dispute. 4. Vide order dated 07-06-2002, the Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to prove that they are in possession of the -5-- 4«/ land in dispute and the respondents have succeeded in proving that they are in possession of the land in dispute as also recorded a specific finding that the respondents shall continue to enjoy possession of the disputed land, till they are dispossessed by due process of law. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred revision petition, which has also been dismissed,, Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the documents placed by petitioners and the evidence led by them, clearly established not only their title, but also possession of the petitioners in relation to the property in dispute. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate recorded a perverse finding ignoring those documentary and oral evidence. It is submitted that the petitioners had produced Khasra Panchshala, B-1, records of the disputed land, in which, the petitioners have been shown to be in possession of the property in dispute, but the same was ignored and perverse finding has been recorded. Learned counsel submitted that even though, in the proceedings under Section 89 ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, an order has been passed on 16-11- 2006 dismissing the application of respondent No.2, which clearly shows that the petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute, yet the Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the respondents are in possession. 6. A perusal of order dated 07-06-2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and proceedings drawn, shows that the Magistrate has considered the oral evidence of Kaushal, Babulal and Rajendra Kumar led by the petitioners as also the oral evidence of Bharat, Bhuneshwar, Bhushan Yadu and Durdeshi led by the respondents. While the witnesses of the petitioners stated that the land is being cultivated by the petitioners, the witnesses of the respondents deposed that Bhuneshwar had sown the crops and cultivated the land from 10 to 15 years. The learned Magistrate has recorded reasons, which show that the evidence was marshaled and learned Magistrate leaned in favour of the respondents by holding that the evidence ' ^ ^^ record shows that the respondent-Bhuneshwar was in possession. It is also recorded that the petitioners have not produced any document of purchase of the land by their ancestors. After taking into consideration the material available on record, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent-Bhuneshwar is in possession of the land. In revision petition, the order passed by the Magistrate has been confirmed by the Revisional Court. As far as reliance on the order passed in proceedings under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, on 16-11-2006 is concerned, that order was passed after the order passed by the Magistrate. The Revisional Court has taken into consideration the material available on record and affirmed the findings recorded by the Magistrate. Order dated 16-11-2006 passed by the Naib Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, relates to correction of revenue records upon submission of relevant documents and per se did not decide the question of de facto possession. 7. In view of foregoing, 1 do not find any apparent illegality or perversity to come to the conclusion that prbcess of law has been abused. The petition, therefore, has no merit, and it deserves to be, and is accordingly dismissed. M'nmdnMS—: