1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of applications and they arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned revisional Court and are with respect to the same property/lands, all the applications are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.
2. The facts leading to the present proceedings in nutshell are as under;
2.1. The dispute is with respect to the land bearing Survey Nos. 301, 302 under Town Planning Scheme No. 23, O.P. No. 11, Final Plot No. 72 admeasuring 2379 sq meters situated at village Gorat-Rander, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') and the present proceedings are arising out of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.2. It appears that three different groups are claiming to be in possession of the suit land i.e. (i) the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008-Shri Mumtazkhan Kudabax, (ii)the applicant of Special Criminal Application No. 1864/2008- Shri Anvarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh and (iii) Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria-original respondent no. 7-third party- original revisionists before the learned revisional Court. At the relevant time, when the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated on the report made by Shri M.F. Baria, P.S.I., Tadvadi Police Chowki of Rander Police Station the dispute was between the original land owners and Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh and, therefore, the concerned Police Inspector apprehended that there is likelihood of breach of peace and the report was made to the concerned Executive Magistrate, Surat City under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the said report was made on 06/04/2003 and initially the learned Executive Magistrate passed an order on 07/07/2003 directing the complainant-PSI to take over possession of the suit land so that there is no breach of peace and to see to it that there is no breach of peace. It appears that the aforesaid Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria also claimed that he is in possession of the suit land on the basis of the agreement to sell, which was alleged to have been executed by the original owners in his favour prior to the transaction in favour of Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh and, therefore, he submitted an application to permit him to be joined as party to the said proceedings. It appears that thereafter during the course of hearing of the said proceedings by the learned Executive Magistrate, it was submitted on behalf of original respondents nos. 1 to 4-original land owners that they have settled the dispute with original respondents nos. 5 and 6 and there is no dispute between them and they have also executed the sale deed in favour of original respondent no. 6-Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh. It was also brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that as such one Special Civil Suit No. 148/2003 (which was filed by the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008) was pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat. Despite the above, without further entering into the question/dispute, that who is in actual possession of the suit land and solely on the basis of the stand taken by original respondents nos. 1 to 6 that they have no dispute now, vide order dated 14/07/2004, the learned Additional Executive Magistrate, Surat passed an order holding original respondent no. 6-Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh in possession of the suit land. While passing the final order, the learned Executive Magistrate also passed an order to set aside the earlier interim order dated 07/07/2003.
2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Additional Executive Magistrate, Surat dated 14/07/2004 in MAG/CR.P.C./145/Rander Police Station Case No. 1/2003 the third party-original respondent no. 7-Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria only preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 126/2004 before the learned Sessions Court, Surat. Despite the specific finding given by the learned revisional Court in paragraph 14 that the learned Magistrate should have independently decided as to who is in actual possession of the disputed land when conflicting claims are already existing, solely relying upon the agreement for lease dated 03/02/2003 and the averments made in the said agreement for lease alleged to have been executed by the original land owners in which it has been mentioned that possession has been handed over to him, the learned revisional Court vide impugned order has allowed the said Criminal Revision Application preferred by the third party-Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned executive Magistrate dated 14/07/2004 and has held that the third party-Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria is in possession of the suit land. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the meantime, the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008-Shri Mumtazkhan Kudabax had already instituted Special Civil Suit No. 148/2003 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat against the original owners as well as Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh for specific performance of agreement to sell with respect to the suit land alleged to have been executed by the original land owners in his favour and for declaration challenging the sale deed in favour of Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh and for permanent injunction, an interim injunction application was submitted below Exh. 5, which came to be allowed by the learned trial Court holding that the said Shri Mumtazkhan Kudhabax in possession of the suit land and thereby directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The said order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 148/2003 was challenged before this Court by way of Appeal from Order and with the consent of the respective parties, the said Appeal from Order came to be disposed of continuing Exh. 5 order directing the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit at the earliest.
2.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 30/08/2008 in Criminal Revision Application No. 126/2004 holding Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria in possession of the suit land, the applicant-Shri Mumtazkhan Khudabax of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008, who has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 148/2003 and who was not party to the proceedings before the Courts below has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 and original respondents nos. 5 and 6-Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh and another have preferred Special Criminal Application No. 1864/2008 challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned revisional Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned executive Magistrate by which Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh was held to be in possession and the learned revisional Court held Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria to be in possession. The applicants of Special Criminal Application No. 2013/2008 have also challenged the aforesaid order passed by the learned revisional Court, who were never party before both the Courts below, who are now claiming that they are in possession of the suit land pursuant to the sale deed executed by Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh.
3. Shri N.D. Nanavati, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 has vehemently submitted that as such the applicant is in possession of the suit land and despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the learned executive Magistrate with respect to pendency of the suit filed by the applicant, without joining the applicant, the impugned orders have been passed by the learned executive Magistrate as well as the learned revisional Court. It is submitted that as such the applicant is found to be in possession of the suit land by the learned trial Court/learned Civil Court while passing the order below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 148/2003 and the parties are directed to maintain status-quo and, therefore, it is submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in holding the possession of Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh and of Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria. It is submitted that as such none of the Courts below have considered the case and/or discussed any evidence independently with respect to who is in possession of the suit land.
3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the third party that even otherwise the learned executive Magistrate erred in holding that the original respondent no. 6-Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh is in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that the learned executive Magistrate has held Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh in possession of the suit land solely on the basis of the statement made by the original owners in the proceedings without giving an opportunity to the applicant, who as such has been found to be in possession of the suit land by the learned Civil Court in the order below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 148/2003 and, therefore, it is requested to allow the Criminal Revision Application and quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below and remand the matter to the learned executive Magistrate to decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity to the applicant.
4. Shri Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants of Special Criminal Application No. 1864/2008 i.e. original respondents nos. 5 and 6 has as such adopted the submissions made by Shri Nanavati, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 and has stated at the bar that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the learned executive Magistrate to decide the same afresh after giving an opportunity to all the concerned, including the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008.
5. All these applications are opposed by Shri Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the third party- original respondent no. 7-Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria. It is submitted that as such no illegality has been committed by the learned revisional Court in declaring that the original revisionists-original respondent no. 7-Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria is in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that as such the original third party is in possession of the suit land and, therefore, if this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the learned executive Magistrate to decide the same afresh and after giving an opportunity to all the concerned, in that case, parties may be directed to maintain status-quo, which was prevailing during pendency of the present proceedings.
6. Shri Nanavati, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 and Shri Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant of Special Criminal Application No. 1864/2008 have opposed the request made by Shri Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing for original respondent no. 7 to direct the parties to maintain status-qo while remanding the matter to the learned executive Magistrate. It is submitted that initially the learned executive Magistrate passed an order on 07/07/2003 directing the original Complainant-Shri M.F. Baria,P.S.I. of Tadvadi Police Chowki of Rander Police Station, Surat to retain the possession, which came to be vacated by the learned executive Magistrate while passing the order dated 14/07/2004 and as such the said Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria is claiming to be in possession/held to be in possession pursuant to the order passed by the learned revisional Court, which according to them deserves to be quashed and set aside and, therefore, it is requested to continue the order dated 07/07/2003 passed by the learned executive Magistrate that the possession be continued with the PSI-original complainant, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the respective parties.
7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned executive Magistrate, Surat as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No. 126/2004. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case now four different groups/persons are claiming to be in possession of the suit land. It appears that initially the dispute arose between original respondents nos. 1 to 4-original land owners and original respondents nos. 5 and 6 and, therefore, apprehending breach of peace the concerned Police Sub Inspector, Shri M.F. Baria, Tadvadi Police Chowki, Rander Police Station, Surat submitted the report to the learned executive Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceedings the third party-Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria submitted an application submitting that as such he is in possession of the suit land pursuant to the agreement to lease . Even the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 is also claiming/claims to be in possession of the suit land and in fact had already instituted Special Civil Suit No. 148/2003 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat and as such there is an order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. 5 directing the parties to the suit to maintain status-quo by holding the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 to be in possession. At the time of hearing of the proceedings before the learned executive Magistrate it was submitted on behalf of original respondents nos. 1 to 4-original land owners and Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh-original respondent no. 6 and another that they have settled the dispute amicably and there is no dispute between them and despite the fact original respondent no. 7-
third party-Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria claimed to be in possession and despite the factum of pendency of Special Civil Suit No. 148/2003 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat filed by the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 and the learned executive Magistrate solely on the basis of the settlement made by original respondents nos. 1 to 6 that they have settled the dispute and that there is no dispute between them, the learned executive Magistrate without independently considering the dispute as to who is in possession of the suit land, disposed of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure vide order dated 14/07/2004 declaring original respondent no. 6-Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh to be in possession. In a Revision Application filed by the third party Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat though specifically observed that the learned Magistrate should have independently decided as to who is in possession of the disputed land as conflicting claims are already existing, solely relying upon the agreement for sale dated 03/02/2003 alleged to have been executed by the original land owners executed in favour of Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria by impugned judgment and order dated 19/07/2004 has allowed the said Revision Application and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned executive Magistrate and has declared the original revisionists-Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria to be in possession of the suit land. It appears from the order that by not believing the possession of Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh the learned revisional Court has observed that in absence of any documentary evidence except for the sale deed between the original respondents nos. 1 to 4 and respondent no. 6 possession of Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh cannot be believed. However, at the same time, without considering any material/evidence on record as to who is in actual possession of the suit land and solely on the basis of the averments in the alleged agreement to lease that the possession has been handed over to the third party-Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria, the learned revisional Court has declared Shri Ramesh Laxmanbhai Sakaria to be in possession of the suit land. No other evidence has been discussed by the learned revisional Court. As stated herinabove, even the learned revisional Court specifically observed in paragraph 14 that the learned Magistrate should have independently decided, who is in actual possession of the disputed suit land when conflicting claims are already existing. If that be so, the learned revisional Court ought to have remanded the matter to the learned executive Magistrate directing the learned executive Magistrate to independently decide as to who was in actual possession of the disputed suit land. Under the circumstances, neither the order passed by the learned executive Magistrate declaring original respondent no. 6- Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh to be in possession nor the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat declaring Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria to be in possession of the suit land can be sustained as neither of the Courts below have independently nor on apprehension of evidence have decided who was in actual possession of the disputed land. Under the circumstances, it appears to the Court that both the orders passed by the learned executive Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned executive Magistrate to independently decide on appreciation of the evidence after giving an opportunity to all the concerned, inclusive of the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 and to decide as to who is/was in actual possession of the disputed suit land either at the time when the report was made by Shri M.F. Baria, P.S.I. Tadvadi Police Chowki, Rander Police Station, Surat or prior to the report made by the P.S.I. (considering the proviso to Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
7.1. Considering the fact that there are conflicting claims by the respective parties with respect to their possession, as on one hand original respondent no. 6- Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh is claiming to be in possession and on the other hand Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria is claiming to be in possession and even the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 is claiming to be in possession and in absence of any evidence discussed by both the Courts below, it is not possible for this Court to definitely come to the conclusion who is in actual possession of the suit land and, therefore till such question is decided by the learned executive Magistrate, on remand, the position which was prevailing as on 07/07/2003 i.e. the order passed by the learned executive Magistrate dated 07/07/2003 directing the original complainant-Shri M.F. Baria, P.S.I., Tadvadi Police Chowki, Rander Police Station, Surat to be in possession of the suit land is directed to be restored and/or continued, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the respective parties in the proceedings and subject to the ultimate outcome of the order that may be passed by the learned executive Magistrate on remand.
7.2. Now so far as the applicant of Special Criminal Application No. 2013/2008, who are claiming to be in possession on the basis of the subsequent transaction alleged to have been executed by Shri Anwarhusen Gulamrasul Shaikh is concerned, their claim cannot be considered. What is required to be considered is the actual possession as on date on which the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 and Special Criminal Application No. 1864/2008 are hereby allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 30/08/2008 in Criminal Revision Application No. 126/2004 as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Executive Magistrate, Surat dated 14/07/2004 in MAG/CR.P.C./145/Rander Police Station Case No. 1/2003 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned executive Magistrate to decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits on appreciation of evidence already led and after giving an opportunity to all the concerned, inclusive to the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008-Mumtazkhan Khudabax and to decide independently as to who was in possession of the disputed suit land on the day on which the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated. The applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008-Mumtazkhan Khudabax shall submit an appropriate application before the learned executive Magistrate for joining party alongwith supporting documentary evidence in their favour within a period of eight weeks from today. The copy of which be given to the respective respondents and/or their advocates and the learned executive Magistrate to allow the said application permitting the said Shri Mumtazkhan Khudabax as well as Shri Rameshbhai Laxmanbhai Sakaria to be joined as party respondents in the said proceedings and thereafter decide and dispose of the case on merits. As stated hereinabove, after giving an opportunity to all the concerned at the earliest but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the present order. Till then, without prejudice and rights and contentions of the respective parties in the proceedings before the learned executive Magistrate (which is now remanded) and subject to the ultimate outcome of the said proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is directed by way of interim arrangement that the order passed by the learned executive Magistrate, Surat dated 07/07/2003 by which possession of the suit land was directed to be with the original complainant P.S.I. Shri M.F. Baria, Tadvadi Police Chowki, Rander Police Station is directed to be continued. Meaning thereby, during pendency of the proceedings, on remand, and without prejudice to the rights and contention of the respective parties, original complainant to be in possession of the suit land. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent so far as Criminal Revision Application No. 738/2008 and Special Criminal Application No. 1864/2008 is concerned and Special Criminal Application No. 2013/2008 is dismissed.
Direct service is permitted.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji