- (1.) These are three petitions. Petitions Nos. 121 and 142 of 1986 were already listed before this Court and on the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the third petition No. 120/86 was also got listed, as the point involved in all the three petitions is the same, and all of them relate to the validity of the reference made by the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-City Magistrate, Udaipur on Mar. 27, 1986, to the Additional District Judge, No. 1 Udaipur.
(2.) The present is a very unfortunate litigation where the property of late Bhagwat Singh of Udaipur is the subject-matter of internal feud between the two sons and their mother. In Rajmahal area, there are three house-properties, viz. (1) Shambhu Niwas Palace; (2) Fateh Prakash Palace having ground-floor Darbar Hall; and (3) Shivniwas Palace, and the bone of contention is about the ownership, acquisition, and, possession and other ancillary rights to the above properties.
(3.) It is not necessary to mention the facts in detail because, earlier judgments of this Court, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 456/84, 14/85 and 15/85, decided on March 18, 1986, mention in detail as to how the dispute arose and the criminal proceedings started under Ss.145 and 146, Cr. P.C. In short, and sweet, by order dt. Mar. 18, 1986, this Court quashed the proceedings under S.145, Cr. P. C. The operative portion of the order is as under : - "As already stated that as the matter is pending in the Civil Court and interim orders have been passed, it would not be proper to allow the criminal proceedings to continue. In my opinion, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the revision petition No. 456 of 1984 is allowed and the proceedings under S.145 Cr. P.C. are quashed." As a legal and logical corollary of the above, a Receiver, which was appointed during the proceedings under S.145, Cr. P.C. was required to quit and release the property. However, the Additional District Magistrate-cum-City-Magistrate found difficulty because according to his version, the Receiver wanted to know, to whom the possession should be given and since at the time of taking over of the possession, it was not mentioned from whom the possession was being taken, both the Receiver as well as the Additional District Magistrate-cum-City Magistrate, were in a fix to issue necessary directions.;