Court No. - 70
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8958 of 2017 Petitioner :- Jainul Abdeen And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Chandra,Asha Parihar,Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi,Pradeep Chandra,Pratik Chandra,Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Siddharth Niranjan
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/respondent no.1 and Sri Dharampal Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar and Siddharth Niranjan, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 31.7.2015 (Annexure No.1) passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Konch, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Case No. 8 of 2015 (Mahmood Ahmad and others Vs. Yakub Ali and others), whereby proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been decided in favour of first party/respondent nos. 2 to 4 declaring their possession over the land plot no. 3782 in dispute and judgment and order dated 19.12.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2015 (Jainul Abdeen and others Vs. Ikbal Akhtar and others), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed.
3. Filtering out unnecessary details, brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) In the year 1979, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. had initiated pursuant to an application given by one Mahmood Ahmad to S.H.O. of Police Station Konch, District Jalaun at Orai and on the basis of report dated 03.03.1979 of S.H.O. of P.S. Konch, District Jalaun at Orai. In the said proceedings, Mahmood Ahmad (father of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4) was the first party and late Yakub Ali (father of the petitioners) was the second party.
(ii) After long litigation, the said proceedings finally decided by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.2015 of S.D.M., Jalaun against the petitioners and in favour of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 declaring the actual physical possession of the first party/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 over the property in question.
(iii) Aggrieved by the above judgment and order dated 31.7.2015, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Jalaun at Orai, which too has suffered dismissed by the judgment and order dated 19.12.2017.
(iv) The aforesaid impugned orders dated 31.7.2015 and 19.12.2017 have been challenged by the petitioners in this petition.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after exchange of pleadings during pendency of the present petition, parties concerned have entered into a compromise and amicable settlement took place between them on 11.2.2019. The said settlement/compromise application dated 11.2.2019 has also been brought on record on behalf of the petitioners by means of third supplementary affidavit dated 13.2.2019 appended as Annexure No. SA-1.
5. The terms and conditions of settlement dated 11.2.2019, as made between the parties concerned, is reproduced herein-below:-
Ekku~uh; m Pp U;k;ky; bykgkcknA vkijkf/kd izdh.kZ ;kfpdk vUrxZr vuqPNsn 227 la[;k 8958 lu 2017 tSuqy vkCnhu ,oe~ vU;
izfr mRrj izns'k jkT; ,oe~ vU; ekU;oj] ;kphx.k ,oe~ izfri{kh la[;k 2 yxk;r 4 ds e/; oknxzLr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa fuEuor~ le>kSrk gks x;k gS&
1- ;g fd ;kphx.k dh ekW Jherh vkfl;k csxe rFkk cfgu Jherh foUrQkrek us izfri{khx.k rFkk ,d vU; O;fDr Jh fgQtqjZgeku iq= Jh eqthcqjZgeku fuoklh eqgYyk vktknuxj dkasp ftyk tkykSu ds fo:) U;k;ky; Jheku flfoy tt¼ lh-
fM-½ tkykSu LFkku mjbZ ds le{k fnukad 23-12-2017 bZ0 dks ewyokn la[;k 246 lu~ 2017 izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa ;kphx.k izfroknhx.k dh gSfl;r ls vkSipkfjd i{kdkj la;ksftr gSaA ;g ewyokn vHkh Hkh fopkjk/khu gS ftlesa U;k;ky; vehu }kjk fookfnr Lfky dk fujh{k.k djus ds mijkUr viuh vehu vk[;k izLrqr dh gS ftlesa ekufp= 26x 2@3 vk[;k dk vax gSA bl vehu vk[;k esa fookfnr Hkwfe dks v{kj , ch lh Mh bZ ,Q th ,p vkbZ ls iznf'kZr fd;k x;kA
2- ;g fd mi;qZDr fookfnr Hkwfe esa dqN {ks=Qy dk fodz; foys[k mDr Jh fgQtqjZgeku ds i{k esa izfri{kh la02 ,oe~ izfri{kh la03 us fnukad 10-08-2015 bZ0 dks fu"ikfnr fd;k gS fdUrq ;kphx.k ,oe~ mDr izfri{khx.k ds e/; tks le>kSrk gqvk gS mlds vk/kkj ij mi;qZDr Jh fgQtqjZgeku mDr vehu vk[;k 26x 2 ls layXu ekufp= 26x2@3 esa iznf'kZr v{kj , ls rFkk v{kj vkbZ ls 20 QhV 6 bap pkSMh ,oe if'pe ls iwoZ lMd iq[rk Mkej jksM dksap ls dSfy;k rd 62 QhV 5 bap Hkwfe vFkkZr dqy {ks=Qy 1271-10 oxZQhV Hkwfe dk Lokeh ,oe~ v/;klhu jgsxkA Jh fgQtqjZgeku ds dCtk o ekfydkuk gd dh bl Hkwfe esa ;kphx.k dk dksbZ vf/kdkj] LokfeRo ;k dCtk ugha jgsxkA bl Hkwfe dks NksM+dj 'ks"k fookfnr Hkwfe ds ekfyd dkfct ;kphx.k jgsaxs ftlesa fdlh Hkh izfri{khx.k dk gd ;k fgLlk ugha jgsxkA izfri{kh la4 us fookfnr Hkwfe esa vius fgLls dk dqy erkyc% izkIr dj fy;k gSA
3- ;g fd vehu vk[;k o mlls layXu ekufp= 26x2 dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi bl lfU/ki= ds lkFk layXu gSA fnuakd izkFkhZx.k
1 tSuqy vkCnhu
2 eqghmn~nhu
3 'kkg gqlSu
4 vyh tkosn iq=x.k LoxhZ; Jh ;kdwc vyh] leLr fuoklhx.k eqgYyk vktknuxj dksap ftyk tkykSuA &&;kphx.k
5 bdcky v[rj 6- bteky vuoj 7 bDlky v[rj Ikq=x.k Jh egewn vgen] leLRk fuoklhx.k eqgYyk vktknuxj dksap ftyk tkykSuA && izfri{kh la02 yxk;r 4
6. On the aforesaid change of circumstances during pendency of the present petition, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the amicable settlement between the parties have already been taken place and the acrimonious relations with regard to present litigation between the parties concerned has come to an end, therefore, petitioners do not want to pursue the present petition on merits. In view of above, request has been made on behalf of the petitioners to decide the present petition in terms of aforesaid settlement dated 11.2.2019.
7. Sri Dharmpal Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 also does not dispute the aforesaid facts and submitted at the Bar that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have also no objection, in case the present petition is disposed of in terms of settlement dated 11.2.2019.
8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, this Court also feels that in order to avoid interminable litigations, the present petition is liable to be disposed of with the consent of the parties concerned at this stage without entering into the merit of the case in terms of settlement dated 11.2.2019.
9. Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed of in terms of settlement dated 11.2.2019, as mentioned in preceding paragraph no.5 of this order. The parties concerned shall abide the terms and conditions of settlement dated 11.2.2019.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 AK Pandey
Court No. - 70
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8958 of 2017 Petitioner :- Jainul Abdeen And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Chandra,Asha Parihar,Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi,Pradeep Chandra,Pratik Chandra,Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Siddharth Niranjan
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Ref:- Criminal Misc. Application No. 10 of 2019 dated 20.2.2019 This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to permit the petitioners to delete the name of respondent no. 7 from the array of the parties, in view of mutual settlement dated 11.2.2019.
In paragraph 4 of the said application, it is stated that respondent nos. 5, 6 and 8 have already died during pendency of the impugned proceedings in the court below and only respondent no. 7 namely, Sharafat Khan survives but he has no interest in the land in dispute involve in the present matter.
In view of above, the application dated 20.2.2019 of the petitioners is allowed. The name of respondent no. 7 is deleted from the array of the parties in the petition.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 AK Pandey