1 CHHAGAN lAL Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ORS. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.278/2008 DATE OF ORDER : 13th May, 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA Mr.Sudhir Sarupariya for the petitioner. Mr.A.R.Nikub , Public Prosecutor. Mr.Vineet Jain for Mr.Sandeep Mehta for the respondent. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.02.08 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara, Camp Shahpura in criminal case No.08/2007 whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 21.03.07 passed by the learned SDM, Shahpura with reference to proceedings taken under sections 145 and 146-A Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that , SHO, Police Station Phuliya Kallan, filed a criminal complaint under section 145 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 to 4 stating inter alia that there is a likelyhood of breach of peace over a disputed land situated at Sarsundra, Aaraji No. 2 331,332 and 334 measuring about 2.47 hectors near Arwad Bandh . The SHO further made a prayer that there is eminent danger of breach of peace, therefore, the concerned property may immediately be attached. It reveals from the record that the learned SDM registered the case and vide order dated 21.03.07 , issued notice under section 145 Cr.P.C. to the concerned parties, along with that, considering the facts he also passed order under section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. for attachment of the said properly and appointed Tehsildar, Shahpura as receiver to take over the possession of disputed land . Being aggrieved by the said order, one of the party , Smt.Ramu Devi and Umrav, filed revision petition against the order of learned SDM before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2. Bhilwara, challenging the legality and correctness of said order on the ground that as there was no danger of eminent breach of peace with regard to said land and wrongly the property has been attached and receiver has been appointed. They further alleged that their crop over the land is standing and a request was made that the order of attachment be 3 quashed and possession may be handed over back to them. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 04.02.08 quashed the order of attachment and appointment of receiver and directed to hand over the possession of the land to Ramu Devi and another respondents ( No.2 and 3) in this revision petition. Against the said order of learned Additional Sessions Judge , the other party, Chhagan Lal , has filed this revision petition before this Court. Notice of this revision petition was issued and record of this case called and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned revisional court has not properly considered and appreciated the contentions placed before him and in a hasty manner passed the said order, quashing the order of the learned SDM. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim over the disputed land is based on registered Will, made in favour of petitioner 4 by the owner of said land Magan s/o Narayhan. The respondent party want to make forcible possession over the land. Therefore, property was rightly attached by learned SDM, but the learned revisional court has not given due weightage to this important aspect. A request was made to quash the impugned order and restore the order of the learned SDM. It was also contended that revenue litigation is also pending between the parties and before final decision of that, the property should not have been ordered to be handed over to the respondents. During the course of arguments, he also submitted certified copy of the order sheet of the proceedings, pending between the party , before the revenue court. A prayer was made to allow the revision. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention and supported the order of the learned revisional court and further submitted that the respondent Smt. Ramu Devi is the real daughter of late Magan and she is the only person entitled to the land in dispute. Further, she was having possession over the land and her crop is standing over the disputed land. The 5 learned revisional court, after considering the facts in its right perspective, has quashed the order of attachment and appointment of receiver and directed to hand over the land to the respondents. The said order is not defective in any respect. It was urged that on the contrary, the petitioner has claimed his right over the land on the basis of Will, that has been disputed and that litigation is already pending before the revenue court, therefore, the very proceeding under section 145 and 146 (1) Cr.P.C. was not entertainable. The revisional court has rightly directed that possession of the land be handed over to the respondents. That order is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity and prayed that the revision may be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is admitted position that between the parties, litigation with regard to same disputed land, is pending before the revenue court. The petitioner himself has submitted the order sheet of that proceedings. The claim of the petitioner is based on the Will in his favour made by Magan. In relation, he 6 is stated to be his nephew ( sister's son). On the contrary, the claim of the respondent is that she is the real daughter of Magan and by virtue of law, she became the owner of the said property. She has also challenged the validity of the Will before the revenue court. The learned revisional court , considering all these facts, specifically has taken into consideration the fact that crop of respondents is standing over the disputed land , and that has not been disputed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner himself has filed an application before the learned SDM on 17.03.07 to attach and appoint receiver over the land. The learned revisional court did not find any justification to maintain order of attachment and the order of appointment of receiver and thereby he quashed the said order. Considering all the facts, without commenting or observing anything on the merit of the case, as the main proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. is pending before the SDM Court and the revenue proceeding is pending before the revenue court , I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned revisional court. The 7 contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not sustainable. In the result, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. The impugned order is maintained. It is made clear that the learned SDM, and the learned revenue court will not be influenced by any observation made in this order and will proceed and decide the matter in accordance with the provision of law. (MANAK MOHTA), J. l.george