Vinod Prasad, J. - (1.) The three petitioners, a widow Smt. Jaravati Devi and her two sons Arvind Kumar and Ravindra Kumar have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and have prayed for the reliefs to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure No. 1), passed by Session's Judge/FTC IInd Jaunpur, in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2006, Jaravati Devi and others v. Shobh Nath and others, and orders dated 16.8.2001, 29.11.2001, 15.12.2005 (Annexures Nos. 2, 3 and 4) passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Badalapur District Jaunpur in Case No. 12 of 2001, Shobha Nath v. Daya Ram and others , under section 145 Cr.P.C., P.S. Singra Mau, Tahsil Badalapur, District Jaunpur. The second prayer is for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to release the property in question in favour of the petitioners as well as respondents No. 5 and 6.
(2.) In short, proceedings fact which have generated this writ petition are that an application was filed by Shobh Nath son of Kedar Nath respondent No. 4 on 10.7.2001 for drawing a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. before Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Badalapur, District Jaunpur in respect of plot No. 126/128 with an area of 2.84 Decimle situated in village Dehudi, P.S. Singra Mau, District Jaunpur. SDM Badalapur called for a police report who submitted it's report on 29.7.2001. On that basis a preliminary order was passed on 16.8.2001 under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and criminal case No. 12/16 of 2001 was registered in the Court of SDM, Badalapur. Both the parties put in their appearances and after hearing both of them SDM concerned passed an order of attachment of the disputed property on 29.11.2001 under section 146(1) Cr. P.C. Attachment was carried on 24.12.2001 and the property was given to the custodian and attachment and Supurdagi report were furnished to the SDM concerned.
(3.) Second Party, the revisionists put in their appearance and filed their written statement. They set up the case that the police had done ex-parte action and no information was given to them of the preliminary order. First party Shobh Nath has nothing to do with the disputed property and he was never in possession over the property in dispute since two months prior to the passing of preliminary order. They further claimed that one Jageshwar was their common ancestor. Jageshwar has three sons-Surya Narain, Baldeo and Ram Narain. Surya Narain died issue less during the life time of Jageshwar leaving his father and two sibling brothers as the owner of the disputed property. After the death of Jageshwar Baldeo became the Karta of the family. He, however, lost life during consolidation proceedings. First party is not related with the second party nor they belong to the same family. The first party on the basis of a forged and manufacture will got an order for mutation of their names passed in an ex-parte proceedings from the Court of Consolidation Officer on 27.9.1997. Against the said order an appeal has been filed by the second party before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) being Appeal No. 3918, Ram Narain v. Shobh Nath in which a stay order staying the impugned order of Consolidation Officer has been passed and an order to maintain status quo has been passed. They also stated that they (Second Party) is in possession over the plot in dispute and the first party was never in possession over the said property. First Party does not live in village Dehudi who connived with the police and got an ex-parte order under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. passed. First party lives in Jaunpur city and indulges into nefarious activities. It prayed that the property be released in it's favour and the order of attachment be removed.;