COCP No.1685 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1685 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: October 12, 2009. Jagir Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Gurlal Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mrs. G.K. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition vide order dated 26.7.2007 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala while disposing of proceedings under Sections 145 and 146(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had appointed Shri Pardeep Kumar, Naib Tehsildar-I, Ajnala as receiver. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that respondent No.2 has ploughed the aforesaid land in violation of the aforesaid orders, as is evident from the letter dated 29.10.2007 written by the SDM, Ajnala to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ajnala which led to registration of FIR No.189 dated 1.11.2007 under Section 447/427 IPC at P.S. Ajnala against respondent No.2. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2 has been filed wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner never entered into possession of the suit land, neither there is any lease deed in his favour and as a matter of fact, respondent No.2 was put into possession by Shri Tilak Raj, etc. who were COCP No.1685 of 2007 -: 2 :- tenants of the Punjab Wakf Board. It has been further submitted that the appeal of respondent No.2 against the judgment and decree of the civil court is also pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar and the proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. initiated by the authorities against him were illegal. It has been specifically stated by respondent No.2 that case against him has been registered illegally and there is no evidence against him to the effect that he had violated the orders of the SDM by ploughing the land. It is further submitted by him that he has been falsely implicated in the case because of the political influence exercised by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.2 has specifically denied the allegations levelled against him by the petitioner. The reply filed by respondent No.2 has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. Whether the respondent No.2 has ploughed the fields, as alleged, is a disputed question of fact. Even otherwise, admittedly the Naib Tehsildar, Ajnala has been appointed the receiver and he is supposed to be in possession of the land in dispute during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid receiver is not in possession of the land in dispute. Moreover, on the asking of the SDM, Ajnala, an FIR has been registered against respondent No.2 for his aforesaid act. In view of the aforesaid factual position, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition as no contempt is made out. Rule discharged. October 12, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge