- (1.) A. P. Sahi, J. This petition questions the validity of the orders dated 23. 10. 2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and also the order dated 6. 7. 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge affirming the same whereby the direction issued by the Magistrate for making recovery from Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has been recalled.
(2.) THE facts shorn of details, as appears from the pleadings exchanged between the parties, are that the petitioner allegedly entered into some agreement to sell after receiving an earnest money of Rs. 2,80,000/- in respect of the land in dispute. THE petitioner appears to have filed a Civil Suit being Original Suit No. 179 of 2000 for rescinding the said agreement to sell which was a registered document and which matter is stated to be pending as on date in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chhata, Mathura. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 alleged that having paid the said earnest money and the agreement that had been entered into, they were also transferred possession of the land and it is they who had sown the crops about which the dispute arose when these proceedings were initiated. The petitioner contends that the agreement to sell, on the basis whereof the respondent claim possession, is a forged document and that apprehending a breach of peace with regard to the harvesting of the crops, the petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for taking appropriate action on which a report was submitted by the Station House Officer of the concerned police station on 4. 10. 2001; a copy of the said police report is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. From the records, it appears that an interim order was passed by the Magistrate on 12. 10. 2001; copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the petition. The said order restrained both the parties from interfering with the standing crops or harvesting them. Thereafter, another order was passed by the Magistrate on 22. 10. 2001 directing the Lekhpal to attach the crops in his presence and to deposit the amount in Court. The file was to be put up for detail orders on 24. 10. 2001. In between it is alleged that on 23. 10. 2001, the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 hurriedly harvested the crops and, as such, an application was filed by the petitioner on 24. 10. 2001 to take appropriate action against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. It was alleged that this was done in violation of the orders dated 12. 10. 2001 and 22. 10. 2001.
(3.) THE Magistrate passed an order of attachment on 24. 10. 2001; which is on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It was further directed that parties shall maintain peace unless and until any orders are passed by the Civil Court in the Suit preferred by the petitioner and further directed that the Lekhpal shall dispose of the crops by way of auction and deposit the same through a Challan in Court. It was further stated that this was necessary as the crops were to be harvested or else they would be affected. THE parties were further directed to submit their evidence in respect of the possession. A revision was preferred against the said order dated 24. 10. 2001 by the contesting respondent and the said revision was dismissed holding that the Magistrate has rightly invoked the powers under section 146 Cr. P. C, for ordering attachment keeping in view the urgent need of the situation. An application was moved on 12. 10. 2002 by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 in spite of the order of attachment has been continuously harvesting the crops and has committed theft and that he has again committed the same offence and, as such, appropriate action should be taken. An order was passed thereon by the Magistrate to lodge an F. I. R. on 13. 11. 2002 and to give the custody of the attached property to some independent person. Accordingly, the Naib Tehsildar on the said direction gave the custody of the property to one Jagvir Singh as receiver and it is alleged that the said crops were taken into Custody by Jagvir Singh. An application was moved on 13. 1. 2003 before the learned Magistrate that the contesting respondent has harvested more than 4 crops illegally and, therefore, the amount should be recovered from them. A notice was issued to the contesting respondent calling upon them to show cause as to why the said amount be not recovered from them. Objections were filed which were rejected and it was directed that the amount has to be deposited other wise the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. A revision was filed against the same by the respondent which was dismissed on 29. 10. 2003 and as a consequence thereto the recovery proceeded and the respondents by the order dated 28. 6. 2004 were directed to deposit the entire amount. The respondents moved an application for recall of the said order objecting to the alleged report of Naib Tahsildar and further to hear them before passing orders.;