JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure, seeking indulgence of this Court to quash proceedings under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, for, suggestedly there is abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) BROAD facts giving rise to this petition are these:- A piece of agricultural land measuring 96 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in village Jakholi was reserved during consolidation operations and put in the ownership of the proprietary body described as JUMLA MALKAN VA HAODARANARAZI. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 Jai Singh and Nafe Singh on one had ( Petitioner No. 3 being their supporting brother) and petitioner No. 4 Baljit Singh likewise, lay claim to its possession, as according to them, the revenue-papers disclosed that they were cultivators in possession of the said land. Apprehending some threat to their possession, Nafe Singh and Jai Singh on 15.6.1983 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat Jakholi through its Sarpanch, who had laid claim to ownership and possession of the said land. They also filed an application for temporary injunction. The same was allowed ex-parte on 15.6.1983 vide order Annexure P-1. It was extended till further orders on 18.7.1983 vide order Annexure P-2. Subsequently on 24.12.1983 the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal, who was in seisin of the matter, returned the plaint to the plaintiff-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. They approached the District Judge in appeal and reiterated their prayer for a temporary injunction. The same was granted on 30.12.1983 vide order Annexure P-4. Finally, the order of the learned Sub Judge returning the plaint was set aside by the Additional District Judge on 6.4.1984 vide judgement Annexure P-3, holding that the property described as JUMLA MALKAN VA HAODARANARAZI did not vest in the panchayat and as such the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, for, there was no question therein to determine whether the land in dispute was shamlat deh or not. This order became final and there was no challenge to it. Subsequently, the matter was put up before the learned Sub Judge on 20-4-1984 and then on 16.5.1984. Vide order on the file, but unannexured, status quo was ordered to be maintained till further orders. That order of status quo is even today operative as stated at the Bar.

(3.) IN the meantime, the Gram Panchayat in assertion of its rights that the land in dispute vested in it, filed an application for eviction against the petitioner before the Assistant Collector, Kaithal, under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, as applicable to Haryana. An order was passed in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 17.11.1983. As claimed by the Panchayat, in execution thereof, it obtained the possession of the land on 28.11.1983. These dates speak for themselves, as despite the claim of the possession of the Panchayat that it had obtained possession of the land in dispute, the Civil Court granted orders of maintenance of status quo on the basis of cross assertions of the parties that each of them was in possession of the land in dispute. It is also significant that on 28.11.1983 when the Panchayat claims to have obtained possession there was a restraint order against it as passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal, and the plaintiff petitioner had not to be forcibly dispossessed therefrom. But as claimed by the Panchayat, it obtained possession of the land in dispute in due process of law.