Sadhari Vs. D.D.C. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[r.v. raveendran; a. k. patnaik] indian penal code section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- after investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the judicial magistrate, first class, ludhiana. after further investigation, the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, submitted his report to the deputy inspector general of police, ludhiana range. the relevant portion of the report of the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, which contains his conclusions after further investigation, is extracted herein below: "i found during my investigation that mohan singh, son of shri sher singh , dharmatma singh, harpal singh, jagdev singh and bhupinder singh, sons of mohan singh, residents of pullanwal, sold one plot of 1 kanal 13 marlas on 09.03.2004 to bharpur sigh, harnek singh, sons of balbir singh, jagjit singh, son of amarjit singh, gurcharan singh, son of hari dass and jagdev singh, son of harpal singh, resident of phulanawal through registered sale deed vasikha no.23895 and the mutation no.10940 duly entered in the name of purchasing party. for deciding the issue, we must first refer to the provisions of section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. 1. this writ petition was admitted on 20.02.1976 and an interim order was passed to the effect that till further orders of this court the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute shall remain stayed.2. notices were issued to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and the office report indicates that neither the undelivered cover nor the registered notices have been returned so far.3. accordingly, after 35 years of the institution of the writ petition there is no occasion for this court to issue any fresh notices as none of the respondents have filed any response in spite of the fact that the stay order has been operating in favour of the petitioner. 4. the dispute appears to have been arisen under section 21 (2) of the u.p. consolidation of holdings act, 1953 for allotment of land during consolidation operations. the petitioner's short case before the consolidation authorities was that his original holding comprising of certain plots was of a total area of 1.25 acres. out of the said holding of the petitioner, an area of only 0.11 acres has been allotted over the original holding of the petitioner of plot no. 292/1. 5. aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india. paragraph 12 of the writ petition categorically states that plot no. 292/1 is a major original holding of the petitioner measuring an area of 1.44 acres and almost the entire landhas been taken away from the original holding of the petitioner. 6. this grievance of the petitioner appears to be justified more so when the respondents in spite of notice have not chosen to respond to this writ petition where an interim order has been operating for the past 35 years. this court can safely presume that the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute which has not been disturbed so far. 7. in such a situation, it would be a travesty of justice to allow any alteration of chaks at this stage when the farmers must have cultivated the said land and improved upon it. 8. in view of this, the impugned order dated 17.12.1975 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed in the absence of the learned counsel for the parties.

Judgment:
1. This writ petition was admitted on 20.02.1976 and an interim order was passed to the effect that till further orders of this Court the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute shall remain stayed.

2. Notices were issued to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and the office report indicates that neither the undelivered cover nor the registered notices have been returned so far.

3. Accordingly, after 35 years of the institution of the writ petition there is no occasion for this Court to issue any fresh notices as none of the respondents have filed any response in spite of the fact that the stay order has been operating in favour of the petitioner.

4. The dispute appears to have been arisen under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for allotment of land during consolidation operations. The petitioner's short case before the Consolidation Authorities was that his original holding comprising of certain plots was of a total area of 1.25 acres. Out of the said holding of the petitioner, an area of only 0.11 acres has been allotted over the original holding of the petitioner of plot no. 292/1.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 12 of the writ petition categorically states that plot no. 292/1 is a major original holding of the petitioner measuring an area of 1.44 acres and almost the entire landhas been taken away from the original holding of the petitioner.

6. This grievance of the petitioner appears to be justified more so when the respondents in spite of notice have not chosen to respond to this writ petition where an interim order has been operating for the past 35 years. This Court can safely presume that the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute which has not been disturbed so far.

7. In such a situation, it would be a travesty of justice to allow any alteration of Chaks at this stage when the farmers must have cultivated the said land and improved upon it.

8. In view of this, the impugned order dated 17.12.1975 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed in the absence of the learned counsel for the parties.