Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition, No. 347 of 1983, decided on 7th April, 1983.

----S. 145-Scope of-Dispute as to possession of immovable pro perty-Court in proceedings under S. 145 not to go into title and lawfulness or otherwise-Court only to enquire into as to who was in possession within two months of proceedings taken--- Person found to be dispossessed within two months to be put into possession-Petitioner filing complaint of illegal dispossession under S. 447, P. P. C. against respondent about three months before." proceedings under S. 145 were taken-Rejection of proceedings under S. 145, held, proper in circumstances-Contention that respondent has been acquitted in case under S. 447, P. P. C. and petitioner already filed petition for special leave to appeal to Supreme Court against acquittal-Held, respondent, if ever convicted under S. 447, P. P. C., Court while passing order of conviction can direct that petitioner be put into possession- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 447.

Shah Muhammad v. Haqnawaz and another P L D 1970 S C 470 and The Commissioner and another v. Mian She Muhammad 1972 S C M R 365 rel.

Wilayat Umar Chaudhry for Petitioner.

The writ petition is directed against the order dated 2nd October. 1982 of Rao Muhammad Hayat Khan, Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore. whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23rd December, 1981 of Magistrate Ist Class, Lahore Cantonment.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. regarding the land in dispute were initiated by the Police on 14th Septemper, 1976. On the receipt of a report the learned Magistrate passed the order of attachment on 16th September, 1976. The dispute was regarding the possession of land. The case of the petitioner was that he was the owner of the property and had been put into possession lawfully, which fact was recorded in the Roznamcha dated 20th January, 1975, copy of which has been placed on the file as Annexure B. The petitioner had got registered case F. I. R. No. 111/76 at Police Station South Cantt. under section 447, P. P. C. on 4th June, 1975, stating therein that he has been illegally dispossessed. Earlier to that F. I. R. No. 105/76 had also been lodged by the petitioner against respondent No. 3 under section 379, P. P. C.

3. The learned Magistrate who had passed the order of attach, meat, vide order dated 23rd December, 1981, held that the action of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. was not desired in this case and that the possession of Muhammad Hussain respondent was admitted. The property which had been attached was ordered to be detached. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision upheld the order of the Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended that the petitioner had been lawfully put into possession, that the order of the learned Civil Court will have upper hand and the same cannot be changed by way of any action taken in any criminal proceedings. He has contended that the petitioner could not have been dispossessed by the respondent and his dispossession was illegal. Reference has been made to Shah Muhammad v. Haqnawaz and another (P L D 1970 S C 470) and The Commissioner and another v. Mian Sher Muhammad (1972 S C M R 395).

5. In the matter reported in 1972 S C M R 395 petition for special leave to appeal was refused while the facts of the case reported in P L D 1970 S C at page 470 are different, in that case a suit was pending and ad interim injunction had been granted by the Civil Court for maintaining status quo i.e. the possession of 'S' was not to be disturbed". This order of the Civil Court was in operation when the Additional District Magistrate passed an order under section 145, Cr. P. C. and directed the Police to seal the disputed premises. The Supreme Court held that, in the circumstances, the order of the A. D. M. was clearly illegal.

6. In the present case no proceedings were pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the petitioner had been put in possession by an order passed by the Civil Judge in the suit filed by the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition has recorded that the copy of the order of the Civil Judge was not placed on file. Be that as it may, the point involved to this petition is entirely different. In the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate is required to see as to whether any person has been dispossessed within two months of the date, the proceedings are initiated, and if anybody is found to have been dispossessed within two months of the initiation of the proceedings, he is to be put into possession. In this case it is the petitioner's own case that he was dispossessed by the respondent on 4th June, 1975, as a result of which a case under section 447, P. P. C. was registered against the respondent. The proceedings were initiated on 14th September, 1976. It means that the respondent was in possession since more than two months before the proceedings were initiated.

7. In this view of the matter the order of the learned Magis trate and that of the Additional Sessions Judge do not suffer from any illegality. The Court while adjudicating upon the matters under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to go into the titles and the lawfulness and unlawfulness of the possession. The only thing which has to be enquired into is hat as to who was in possession within two months of the proceedings taken, and if anybody has been found to be dispossessed within two months, he is to be put, into possession.

In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed in limine.

7. The petitioner, if feels aggrieved of having been unlawfully dis possessed, may seek the remedies before the proper forum.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments stated that the respondent had been acquitted in the case under section 447, P. P. C. and the petitioner has already filed a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. If the respondent is ever con victed in the case under section 447, P. P. C. the Court while passing the e order of conviction can direct that the petitioner be put into possession.

Petition 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.