Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No. 156/2012 dated 12.11.2012 registered with the Police Station, Bishnah under sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 427 RPC and consequent Challan No.187, titled State vs. Sudagarmal and others under section 447-A RPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bishnah.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the land measuring 20 kanals 08 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 175 and 177 (new) Khasra No. 2 (old) situate at village Jinder Khurud, Tehsil Bishnah, was under the ownership of Gamu, Irshad Begum and Bader Din, over which Laju the father of respondent No. 3, Chaman Lal and others were recorded as occupancy tenants of class 1 under section 4 class 1 of the Tenancy Act of 1923 A.D. being cultivating the said land before 1947. It is contended that the owners, namely, Gamu, Irshad Bagum and Bader are alleged to have migrated to Pakistan in 1947 but before migration, they had let out the said land to the ancestors of Chaman Lal on or before Samvat year 1928 with the result the ancestors of Chaman Lal had attained the status of Occupancy Tenant class 1 in terms of the Section 4 (A) of the Tenancy Act 1923.
(3.) It is further contended that the ancestors of Chaman Lal, who had become occupancy tenant of the land belongs to non-agriculturist class and have further let out the aforesaid land to Sh. Mendak and Sh. Kukad, sons of Sh. Labhu before 1955 and with the coming into operation of the Tenancy Amendment Act of 1955, Sh. Mendak and Sh. Kukad were declared as protected tenant by virtue of Section 15 (A) of Amending Act of 1955 and its effect was recorded in the record of rights (Jamabandhi) for the year 1956-1957. It is further stated that though the Tenancy Act was further amended in the year 1965 and all types of tenants cultivating the land were declared as protected tenants under the landlords. Sh. Kukad, who was the grandfather of the petitioners, had already attained the status of protected tenant under the ancestors of respondent No.3-Chaman Lal by virtue of the Amendment incorporated in the Tenancy Act, 1955 being in cultivating possession of the land prior to 1955. The recorded owners/landlords i.e. Gamu and others had migrated to Pakistan and their ownership rights in the land comprising Khasra Nos. 175 and 177 (new) Khasra No.2 (old) measuring 20 kanals 08 marlas along with other lands had vested in the respondent No.2, under the Evacuee Property Act. It is contended that respondent No. 2 in whom the limited rights of the evacuees vested has no power or jurisdiction to evict the occupancy tenant or the protected tenant under the occupancy tenant as the petitioners are, who have inherited their tenancy from their father Kutti and grandfather Kukad. The respondent No. 2 was only entitled to receive the land revenue from the occupancy tenants which evacuees allege to be receiving before their migration. It is stated that in the present case there is intermediatory i.e. the occupancy tenant, respondent No.3 and his ancestors between respondent No.2 and the petitioners who are protected tenants of the land the subject matter and the petitioners cannot be evicted from the said land under their tenancy without extinguishing the occupancy rights of respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to resume the land from the petitioners who are protected tenants under respondent No.3 that too without following the procedure laid down under Section 44 and 45 of the Tenancy Act and without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard.;