S.C.AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the respondents no.1, 2 & 3 and Sri Rajesh Pachauri, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
(2.) THIS writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 20.3.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar (annexure 19 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 9.3.2010 passed by respondent no.2 (annexure 18 to the writ petition). A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents no.2 and 3 to restore the possession of house in question to maintain status quo ante as it was prior to the passing of revisional order dated 20.3.2010. Petitioners and respondent no.4 belong to the same family. Admittedly, House no.105 situated in Mohalla Mandi Chob, Tehsil Amroha, District J.P. Nagar was initially owned by Mithlesh Kumari wife of Raj Narayan. She died during life time of her husband Raj Narayan. Subsequently, Raj Narayan also passed away on 4.5.2001. They had no children. Raj Narayan had five brothers namely, Prayag Narayan, Jai Narayan, Ravindra Narayan, Rohtash Narayan and Ram Narayan. Petitioners no.1 to 5 are the sons of Jai Narayan, petitioner no.6 is the son of Laxmi Narayan, petitioner no.7 is the son of Prayag Narayan and respondent no.4 is the real son of Ram Narayan, but claims to be the adopted son of Raj Narayan. Respondent no.4, claiming himself to be the adopted son of Raj Narayan and alleging to inherit the disputed house through Will dated 27.3.2001, filed Original Suit No.202 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Amroha for injunction, claiming that the defendants were interfering in his possession on the suit property. Other brothers of Raj Narayan also filed Suit No.216 of 2001 against respondent no.4 and his real father Ram Narayan seeking permanent prohibitory injunction, alleging that respondent no.4 and Ram Narayan were trying to dispossess them. Thereafter, Amin Commissioner was appointed by the Civil Court to inspect the property. The Amin submitted a report dated 31.5.2001 showing possession of respondent no.4. A copy of the Amin's report is annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petitioners moved an application before the S.D.M. (respondent no.2) under section 145 Cr.P.C. alleging apprehension of breach of peace. On 24.5.2001, preliminary order under section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. was passed by respondent no.2. On 4.6.2001, an order under section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. was passed attaching the property in dispute. Consequently, on 6.6.2001, the disputed house was attached and given in the supurdgi of one Mahesh Chandra. Against the orders dated 24.5.2001 and 4.6.2001 passed by respondent no.2, respondent no.4 filed criminal revision no.187 of 2001, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 11.2.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar (annexure 8 to the writ petition). Impugned order dated 24.5.2001 and consequent further proceedings conducted by learned S.D.M. were quashed. No order regarding delivery of possession was passed by learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, learned S.D.M. vide order dated 24.3.2003 sought opinion from D.G.C. (Crl.) and after receipt of the opinion of D.G.C. (Crl.), learned Magistrate held that since matter was pending in the Civil Court, no further action was required. This order dated 2.2.2003 was challenged by respondent no.4 by filing criminal revision no.48 of 2003, which was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.1, J.P. Nagar vide judgment and order dated 4.3.2004 and learned S.D.M. was directed to take action in pursuance of judgment passed in criminal revision no.187 of 2001. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.3.2004, learned Magistrate passed an order that till the decision of the Civil Court, the property in dispute shall continue to remain under attachment.
(3.) ORDER dated 29.3.2004 passed by S.D.M. was again challenged by respondent no.4 by means of criminal revision no.44 of 2004, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 4.10.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No.4, J.P. Nagar and order dated 29.3.2004 passed by S.D.M. was set-aside.;