Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8916 of 2005 Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Om Prakash Tripathi
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- List has been revised. Learned counsel for the respondent is not present.
2- Heard Sri A.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3- This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.8.2003 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karvi, District Chitrakoot and order dated 12.8.2005 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot whereby disputed land in Gata No.28 second party was restrained to interfere in the possession of the first party. Against order dated 16.8.2003 criminal revision no. 56 of 2003 filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2005. Hence this writ petition.
4- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without application of mind.
5- On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6- According to Section 145 Cr.P.C. it is very clear that if there is dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, the Magistrate on the basis of evidence may pass an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. about the property in dispute and may not decide the title of the case.
7- Both the parties have option to file a suit in competent court about the title of the disputed land and get the relief from the competent court.
8- On the point of fact, both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact and the view taken by the courts below are plausible view, hence no interference is called for.
9- In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
10- However, in case if the petitioner files a suit before the competent court the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.
11- Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 OP '
'
'
Court No. - 41
Criminal Misc. Substitution Application No. 253734 of 2008 In Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8916 of 2005 Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Om Prakash Tripathi
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
The substitution application moved by the applicants on 3.10.2018. No objection has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sole petitioner-Jagdish Prasad died on 18.7.2008 leaving behind his legal heirs, Devanand, Mahanand, Shivanand and Manoj Kumar and Smt. Saraswati Devi, wife of late petitioner and in place of sole petitioner, the names of his legal heirs Devanand, Mahanand, Shivanand and Manoj Kumar and Smt. Saraswati Devi, wife of late petitioner be impleaded/substituted as mentioned in the affidavit of substitution application.
Application is allowed.
Office is directed to make out necessary correction in compliance of the order dated 13.9.2018.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 OP