Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revisions Nos. 171 and 172 of 1970, decided sin Ist August 1972.

S. 145 (4), second proviso & (5)-Attachment of property----Applicant tenants having received their share of produce, contesting attachment of zamindari share--Applicants, held, had no locus standi to contest attachment.

Jhamat Mal for Applicant.

Manzoor Hussain for A. C. for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st August 1972.

These are two revision applications arising out of the same incident, against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

On 9-9-69 Zakir Hussain respondent No. 1 filed an application tinder section 145, Cr. P. C, in the Court of the Civil Judge and 1st' Class Magistrate Shujawal against the applicant and others praying for the attachment of the standing crop and the appointment of the receiver of the agricultural land alleging that he and his family members had purchased the land from one Kazim Imam and was in possession of the land while the applicant and others were their harts and they had threatened to remove the entire crop includ ing the zamindari share. The applicant filed the written statement disputing the title of the respondent and pleading that Kazim Imam, Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Yaqoob and others were their zamindars. The learned Magistrate attached the crop and appointed Mukhtiarkar Mirpur Mathelo as receiver for keeping the zamindari share of the land in his custody. Subsequently, Kazim Imam, Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Yaqoob made applications under section 145, Cr. P. C. for the cancellation of the order of the appointment of receiver. The applications of Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Yaqoob were dismissed. Kazim Imam requested for the hearing of his application. but on the date of hearing the respondent was absent and the application made by him was dismissed. However, no order with regard to the attachment of the crop was passed. Subsequently, another order was passed directing the zamindari share to be delivered to the respondent on the basis of the order of the District Judge, Hyderabad and Civil Judge on the injunction application made by the respondent. This order is dated 27-2-70.

Aggrieved by this a revision application was filed in the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision on the ground that the applicants were tenants and they had also received their shares and the remaining produce was the share of the zamindar and, therefore, they had no locus standi and it was for the owner to contest the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the State while the respondent and his counsel are absent. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to advance any convincing argument in order to assail the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Admittedly the applicants are the tenants and they have already received their share of the produce. The remaining produce is the zamindari share and they have no claim to it.

In the circumstances the revision applications are dismissed.

Applications dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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