HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.WI.P.No.336of2010 Petitioner Ujagar Lai Verma, S/o Nankiram Revisioner Verma, Caste-Gabsl.aged about 60 years R/o Botalda, TahsH-Kharsia, District-Raigarh (C.G.) BesBoadenis Non-applteant Veisus 1. Janakram, S/o Jhaduram, aged about 52 years, 2. Jhaduram, S/o not known, agedabout 70 years, Both R/o of Village-Botalda, P.S. & Tahsil-Khareia, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 3. State of Chhatttegarh, through District Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.) (Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) a (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) Present:- Mr.Atui Pandey, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr.U.K.S.Chandet, Panel Lawyer forthe Stete/respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3 January, 2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.G., the petttioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh in Criminai R&vision No.102/09, affirming the order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khareia in Criminal Case No.94/02 whereby leamed Sub Divisional Qfficer has denied the claim of recovery of expenses incurred in agricultural operation by Supurddar/petitioner. 2. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned and order of the Sub Divisional Officsr, Kharsia. 3. As per order impugned and order of the Sub Divisionai Officer, certain agricultural lands were given in custody to the petrtioner. Under Section 146 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sowed the crop in summer season as ravi crop, thereafter, vide order dated 25.8.2003 order of attachment and custodywas quashed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed appiication before the Sub Divisional Officer, Khareia for recovery of expenses incurred in ~7 'Q. ^. 2_- cuitivation in which hs has mentioned that crop has been destroyed on account of rain. After hsaring the parties, leamed Sub Divisional Officer has arrived at a finding that when the alleged crop was destroyed, th@ petitionsr has not intimated the same to the Court and when theorder to retum the property has been passed, oniy thereafter he has applied forsuch expenses on the basls of some receipt which he has not been ^roved by the petitioner, therefore, he is not sntitted for any alleged expenses insurred in sowing crop. Samewas challenged before ths revtsional Court, which has been affirmed by the said Court. 4. Learned counset for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was Supurddar and property was in his custody, therefore, he is enttiled for expenses incurred in sowing crop. White dismissing the petition and revision, both the Courts below have committed grave illegality. 5. On the other hand, iearned State counsel opposes ths petttion and submits that both the Courts belovv have rightly dismissed the claim of the petitloner. 6. Both the orders impugned revea! that the property was in custody and the petitioner was Supurddar, he was under obligation to sow andcuttivate ths erop andalso under obligation to intimate the Court in oase the crop was rotten by any means, but he has not intimated the Court or even he has not ciaimed expenses incurred in sowing crop, but when ordsr to return the property was passed, then only the present petitioner has applled for recovery of such expenses, that too without any proof. 7. Considering the aforesaid Tact, by dismissing the ciaim of the petitionsr both ths Courts below have not committed any iliegality. 1 do not find any ground for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction in terms ofSection 482 ofthe Gr.P.C. 8. Consequently, the petition is iiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismtesed at the motion stags teetf. : --— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge