- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri M. C. Chaturvedi and Sri Satya Prakash Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A. G. A. and Sri Anurag Pathak learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition the respondent No. 4 died. A Substitution Application No. 192595 of 2003 has been filed on 22-10-2003 by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to substitute the names of the heirs of the respondent No. 4. The time was granted to the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 to file objection in the aforesaid substitution application on 12-11-2003, but no objection has been filed by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4. The substitution application was allowed on 5-12- 2003 by this Court and the names of the heirs of the respondent No. 4 namely Charan Lal, Ramesh Chand, Naresh Chand and Smt. Prakashi, the widow of Chauhal were substituted as respondents No. 4/1 to 4/4 respectively. This petition has been filed against the order dated 18-1-2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nakur, District Saharanpur, in Case No. 62, under Section 145 Cr. P. C. Chauhal v. Ram Saran & Ors. , whereby the property in dispute and the amount of the cost of the crops was released in favour of the respondent late Chauhal and the petitioners were directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the respondent late Chauhal and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. were dropped and the order dated 7-5-2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sahraranpur in Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2001, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the application filed by the petitioners the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. were initiated and the order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was passed by the S. D. M. Nakur on 27-12-1985. Thereafter, the order dated 10-1-1986 was passed by the learned S. D. M. , Nakur under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. and the property in dispute was attached. Thereafter, both the parties appeared before the Court and adduced their evidence in support of their claims. Consequently, the learned S. D. M. , Nakur came to the conclusion that the respondent late Chauhal was in peaceful possession over the property in dispute prior two months of the passing of the preliminary order dated 27-12-1985 and 10-1-1996 and the amount of the cost of the crops was released in the favour of the respondent late Chauhal and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. were dropped.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 18-1-2001 passed by the learned S. D. M. is illegal because the petitioners were in peaceful possession over the land in dispute and they have successfully proved their claim, but the learned S. D. M. has decided the question of the possession in favour of the respondent late Chauhal on the basis of the conjecture and surmises. IT is contended that the petitioners are owner of the land in dispute because the land in dispute was owned by one deceased Gultan. During his lifetime he had executed a sale-deed dated 17- 1-1981 and 18-2-1981 in favour of the petitioners. Gultan was living with the petitioners and a registered sale-deed was also executed by him regarding the share of his property (the property in dispute ). During his lifetime the Gultan was in possession and he was living with the petitioners. The petitioners were also in physical possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale-deed as well as registered will executed by the one Gultan. The learned Counsel for the respondents and learned A. G. A. opposed the contention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners by submitting that the respondent late Chauhal was in physical possession over the land in dispute even on the date of police report submitted by the police of the police station concerned, because the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the application given by the petitioners in which it was clearly mentioned that the respondent late Chauhal was not permitting to the petitioners to take the possession of the land in dispute. It shows that the petitioners were not in the possession over the property in dispute on that date, the respondent late Chauhal was in physical possession over the land in dispute, but a false police report was submitted mentioning therein that the respondent late Chauhal was trying to take possession over the land in dispute from the petitioners, it is a contradictory report. It is further submitted that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent late Chauhal in the Court of learned Munsif Hawali, Sahranpur alongwith an injunction application. That injunction application was rejected and subsequently the sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioners was also cancelled on 17-12-1982. Against that order the petitioners filed Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1983 which was also dismissed on 18-4-1983 by the learned District Judge, Saharanpur and on the basis of the registered will the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records. It was challenged by the respondent late Chauhal. It was also decided by the Board of Revenue against the petitioners vide order dated 28-5-1993. As such the matter in respect of title has been decided by the civil Courts as well as the revenue Courts and the petitioners could not success from the any Court. In such circumstances the petitioners failed to establish their possession over the land in dispute.;