K.D.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions arise out of a single judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 7th June, 1972 upholding the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Jhunjhunu, dated 19th May, 1970 in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. As there are common questions of law and fact involved in these two applications in revision, they are disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rife to these revision petitions may be shortly slated as follows. The Station House Office', Police Station, Ghidawa initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr P.C. against the parties in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu on 12th August, 1968. It was alleged by the police that there is an agricultural land measuring 24 bighas and 2 biswas under a well popularly known as 'Swamiwala Will' situated in khasra No. 529 at village Ojatu Out of this land one half, i.e. 12 bighas and 1 Biswa belong to Nathudas and his daughter Kamali and her husband Hajarilal (hereinafter referred to as Party No. 2) and the remaining half belongs to Prahlad, Dwarka, Sagar and Radheshyam (hereinafter referred to as Party No. 1). There is a dispute concerning a portion of this land measuring 2 bighas and 5 biswas between the parties which is likely to cause breach of peace. On account of this dispute a quarrel ensued between the parties on 27th July, 1968 which led to a 'marpeet'. The party No. 1 got a criminal case registered under Sections 447 and 324, IPC. at the Police Station. The party No, 2 also lodged a first information report about this incident with police. Each party has claimed this piece of land to be of their ownership and possession and there is every likelihood that they may again commit breach of peace over the possession of this land in dispute. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied by the police report that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace concerning this portion of this land existed; so he made a preliminary order on 19th August, 1968 requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court and to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute and further requiring them to aduce evidence in support of such claims. The parties submitted their claims and produced documents and put in affidavits of witnesses on whom they relied in support of their respective claims. During the pendency of the proceedings in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate Nathudas died and his legal representatives Banarsidevi, widow of Laxmandas and her son Parmeshwar were brought on record and the proceedings continued inspite of Nathudas's death. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate after hearing the parties and concluding the inquiry arrived at a conclusion that party No. 2 was in actual possession of the land in dispute at the date of the preliminary order. He consequently passed an order declaring Nathudas deceased, Kamali and Hajarilal to be entitled to the possession of the land under controversy until evicted therefrom in due course of law and for forbidding all disturbances of such possession until such eviction. As the land in dispute Was Cinder attachment and was in possession of the Receiver, i.e. Tehsildar, Chidawa, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate released the land from attachment and directed the Receiver to hand over its possession to party No. 2, Karraii and Hajarilal along with the benefit accuring during the period of attachment. Aggrirved by 'his order the party No. 1 filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge. Jhunjhunu. The learned Sessions Judge, however, dismissed the application in revision and upheld the order of the earned Sub Divisional Magistrate.
(3.) THE legal representatives of Nathudas deceased who have been brought on record by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate under Sub -section (7) of Section 145, Cr. P.C. also felt aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate because the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not pass the order that they should also be put in joint possession of the land in dispute. Hence the legal representatives also filed an application in revision against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Jhunjhunu before the Sessions Judge for modification of the order for restoration of possession in their favour The learned Sessions Judge heard the revision petition and held that the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate should be interpreted in such a manner as to mean that the legal representatives of Nathudas deceased were also ordered to get joint possession of the land with Kamli and Hajarilal along with the benefits accuring therefrom during the period of attachment. Against this judgment of the learned Sessions Judge both the legal representatives of Nathudas deceased and Kamali and Hajarilal have come up in revision to this Court as stated above.;