Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 9th June 1971, in Criminal Review No. 197 of 1971).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),

Ss. 145 & 146(2)‑ Dispute as to possession of immovable property‑Receiver appointed by a Criminal Court and also by a civil Court‑Prayer that order passed by criminal Court appointing receiver in proceeding under S. 145 be vacated‑Proper remedy for aggrieved party, to approach criminal Court under S. 146(2).

Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmud A. Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

S. M. Zubair, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2‑5.

Date of hearing : 21st October 1971.

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑-

The dispute between the patties. is in respect of certain agricultural land leased out by the evacuee Trust Board in the year 1962‑63 to Ijaz Ali and other respondents Nazir Ahmad and other petitioners claimed to be the actual tillers of the said land which was denied by the respondents. The petitioners apprehended their ejectment and instituted writ petition No. 1132‑R of 1970 against the evacuee Trust Board, Sheikhu pura and respondents for a direction that they may be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners in the unlawful manner. The writ petition was dismissed on the 22nd December 1970 with the observation that the parties may approach in the ordinary Courts for determination of their respective rights, if so advised. Respondents later on, came to know that the peti tioners had by fraudulent means, got themselves recorded in Khasra‑Girdawari as in possession of the said land in Kharif 1970. On the 11th January 1971, the respondents initiated proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. against the petitioners in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib. On the 14th January 1971, the learned Assistant Commissioner directed that the said land be attached and Ch. Mohammad Siddique, Naib Tehsildar, Nankana Sahib be appointed as a receiver. The petitioners got this stayed by the Assistant Commissioner on the plea that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) had stayed the proceed ings. This order was withdrawn and the order appointing the receiver was restored by the Assistant Commissioner.

On the 11th February 1971, the petitioners filed a suit against Ijaz Ali and others in the Court of Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib for a declaration that the petitioners‑plaintiffs in their capacity as tenants‑at‑will, were in occupation of the said land and prayed for permanent injunction. On this the civil Court passed the following order :‑

"Status quo to be observed until further orders."

Later on, the civil Court appointed Naib‑Tehsildar, Nankana Sahib, as receiver of the property and this order was upheld on the 25th June 1971, by the Appellate Court.

The petitioners filed an application under section 561‑A read with section 439, Cr. P. C. praying that the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner for the appointment of a receiver be set aside and proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. pending before him be quashed. This petition was dismissed on the 9th June 1971. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.

Mr. Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the grievance of the petitioners is about the appointment of the receiver under section 145, Cr. P. C. and as the civil Court has appointed a receiver, the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib be set aside. It is unnecessary for us to consider the question: whether the learned Singly Judge of the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the proceedings because the proper remedy for the petitioners is to move the Assistant Commissioner. Nankana Sahib, under section 146(2) of the Criminal Procedure'. Code for handing over the possession of the property in dispute to the receiver appointed by the civil Court. In this view, this is not a tit case for interference in our special jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.