B.S.YADAV, J. - (1.) RANDHIR Singh has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 22.11.1982 (Annexures P.2) (correct date of that order is 2.11.1982) and dated 28.12.1982 (Annexure P.1) passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampura Phul.
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the petition, the petitioner get the land in dispute on Chakota from respondent No. 2 and was in actual possession of the same as tenant under respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Ishar Singh and Hardam Singh respectively. The entries in the Khasra Girdawaris were also in his name. The said respondents were making attempts to eject him. He filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Phul, against them for restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession on the land in dispute. After satisfying himself, the learned Sub Judge granted ad interim injunction on 29.4.1982 till the decision of the suit, restraining the said respondents from entering into possession on the land otherwise in due process of law. On the calendar presented by the police, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampura Phul, passed order on 2nd November, 1982 (Annexure P.2) by which he issued notices to the parties to put forth their claims under section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure as he was satisfied that there was every apprehension of the breach of peace. Vide order dated 28th December, 1982, (Annexure P. 1) the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered attachment of the land as there was apprehension of the breach of peace at any time. He also appointed Tehsildar, Rampura Phul, as Receiver of the land and to take immediate possession of it. That order was passed under section 146 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has challenged the above orders on the ground that the learned Magistrate had totally ignored the order of the Civil Court according to which he had been held to be in possession and ad interim injunction was passed against the contesting respondents restraining them from interfering with his possession and that the Sub Divisional Magistrate ought to have taken the steps to prevent the breach of peace and not to come to the conclusion to pass the impugned order attaching the land and the standing crop. It was also alleged that the contesting respondents were trying to disturb his peaceful possession as well as the peace and thus proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were in the nature of the abuse of the process of the Court.
(3.) THE above petition was contested by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as well as by the State (respondent No. 1).;