UJAGAR SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UJJAGAR Singh petitioner has come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of orders dated April 24, 1992 Annexure P4 and dated October 13,1992 Annexure P6 passed by SDM Malerkotla and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur respectively,

(2.) PROCEEDINGS under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC were initiated on the basis of a Calandera filed by PS Malerkotla with respect to the lands measuring 67 Bighas and 3 Biswas situate at Village Hathan. Kishan Pal Kaur daughter of Thakra Singh was married to Surjit Singh son of Ujjagar Singh son of Sampuran Singh of Village Faridpur Khurd. Ujjagar Singh, Jora Singh, and Harbhajan Singh were the tenants on this land for many years. Proceedings for ejectment were initiated by Kishan Pal Kaur in the Court of SDM, Malerkotla which was decided in her favour on November 18, 1991 and excepting for Khasra No. 1749, the possession of remaining land was got delivered by Kanungo and Patwari to Kishan Pal Kaur and others and a report in the Roznamacha dated November 26, 1991 was recorded. Jawar and Wheat crops were standing in the land regarding which compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was assessed which amount had, however, not been deposited by Kishan Pal Kaur and others. Ujjagar Singh petitioner and others obtained a stay order from the Court of Deputy Commissioner Sangrur on November 27, 1991 which order was subsequently confirmed on December 23, 1991. The SDM Malerkotla vide his order dated December 12, 1991 did not give approval to the order dated November 18, 1991 for the reason that Kishan Pal Kaur had not deposited the amount of compensation. Ujjagar Singh and others then filed an application for cancellation of case No. 177, but this application was dismissed on 12.3.92 on the ground that the same should have been moved before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, where the appeal was pending. On April 9, 1992, Ujjagar Singh and others obtained as stay order from the Court of SDM Sh. Joga Singh, to the effect that Kishan Pal Kaur and others may not put any hindrance in the harvesting of the crop. In the Khasra Girdawari, there was no clear indication as to which of the party was in possession and entitled to harvest the crop. Both the parties were laying their claim on this crop and security proceedings had been initiated. The police, thus, made a prayer that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC be initiated.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents urges that this amounted to a complete ouster of the petitioner and his co-tenants for the very reason that the delivery of symbolic possession against a judgment-debtor tentamounts to his complete ouster and since disputes had been raised by the petitioner with respect to the possession of Kishanpal Kaur and others, a dispute had arisen which needed adjudication in proceedings under Section 145 CrPC.