SHIV SHANKER,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioners, Ranjit Singh and others praying to quash the order dated 21 -2 -2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2004, Smt. Gyatri & Ors. v. Ranjit Singh & Ors., by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Banda whereby the revision was allowed and impugned order passed by the Court below was set aside. It was further prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to release the property in dispute and taking back possession from the Supurdgars.
(2.) BRIEF facts, arising out of this case, are that Krishna Gopal Mishra and Mata Prasad were recorded bhumidhar of the plot in dispute No. 1232, area 3 bigha and plot No. 1233, area 4 bigha 17 biswa situated in village Attarra Buzurg, Pargana and Tehsil Atarra, District Banda. Thereafter, a forged power of attorney was got executed. Therefore, it is alleged that a forged power of attorney was got executed in favour of Awadh Kishore allegedly executed by Krishna Gopal Mishra and Mata Prasad. On the ground of forged power of attorney, Krishna Gopal Mishra lodged the F.I.R. under Sections 467,468,420,504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Banda. Holder of the power of attorney Awadh Kishore is the real brother -in -law of Rajesh Kumar, respondent No. 9 and a sale -deed was executed by him in favour of Raj Bahadur, Rajendra Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar all sons of Ram Pratap. On 17 -6 -1993 a registered sale -deed had been executed by Krishna Gopal Mishra himself in favour of petitioners Ranjit Singh and Raj Karan Mishra, who came in possession over the property in dispute. Therefore, share of Krishna Gopal Mishra firstly was transferred by the holder of the power of attorney and same was again transferred by the owner of the property of Krishna Gopal Mishra. Therefore, the dispute has arisen between both the vendees of the sale -deeds. An application dated 13 -6 - 2003 moved on behalf of the petitioners in the Court of S.D.M. upon which the report was called from the concerned police station. Similarly, report was also summoned from the Tehsildar at the instance of the respondents and police submitted the chalani under Sections 107/116 and 145 Cr.P.C. Similarly, Tahsildar has also submitted the report with regard to the mutation. It was also stated in the Chalani report. Both parties are the influenced persons and second party Rajendra Kumar Sharma is constructing the shops upon the disputed land with the help of his companions while other party is opposed. They themselves wanted to construct the shop upon the land. Therefore, there is apprehension of breach of peace between both the parties. Parties be summoned by appropriate order in accordance with the law. After satisfying the facts mentioned in the Challani report, the S.D.M. concerned has passed preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. as well as the attachment order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. After appearance of the parties in the case, the application on behalf of the respondents was moved which was rejected vide order dated 12 -7 -2004 by S.D.M. Feeling aggrieved by it legal representative of Raj Bahadur Sharma, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Smt. Manju Sharma, Vikas, Vivek filed criminal revision No. 166 of 2004, which was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 21 -2 -2006 whereby the proceeding was quashed. Similarly the order of attachment and supurdaginama regarding disputed land was also quashed. It was directed that the possession be given to the revisionist upon the disputed land. Thereafter, Ranjit and others filed the present petition.
(3.) HEARD the arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.;