Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 23.06.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr.Revision No.10/2007, whereby the revisional court has rejected the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 28.04.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in the proceedings under section 145 CrPC.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on an application filed by the then S.H.O., Police Station, Khuhari, District Jaisalmer, the trial court initiated the proceedings under section 145 CrPC against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 01.11.2001 and ordered for attachment of the land of Khasra No.53/113, 56, 57, 64, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75 and 76 measuring about 56 Bighas and 18 Biswas situated at village Manpiya Khadeen (in brevity 'the land in question' hereinafter) and appointed the then S.H.O. Police Station, Khuhari as receiver. The petitioners as well as respondent No.3 had moved applications before the trial court for releasing the land in question from attachment and for handing over the possession of same to them. The S.D.M. vide order dated 28.02.2007 dropped the proceedings under section 145 CrPC and released the land in question from attachment and also ordered the receiver to handover the possession of the land in question to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioners preferred a revision before the revisional court, however, the revisional court has dismissed the said revision petition and affirmed the order passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question at the time of attachment and therefore, the trial court grossly erred in directing the receiver to handover the possession of the land in question to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of the Court towards the order dated 9th December 1975 passed by the District Collector, Jaisalmer in Revenue Misc. Case No.145/1975 and argued that in the said order, the District Collector, Jaisalmer had given a finding that the persons, from whom the land in question was purchased by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, have no authority to sell the land in question. It is further submitted that the District Collector had thereafter directed the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer to initiate proceedings under section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for the purpose of referring the matter to the Board of Revenue. It is also argued that pursuant to that direction, the matter was referred to the Board of Revenue, however, the courts below without taking into consideration the aspect of the matter, illegally passed the impugned orders.;