Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:899 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15376 of 2024 Petitioner :- Hadi Hasan Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Deobanshi,Sonia Kulshreshtha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State respondents. 2. By means of this present petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2022 (Mohd. Hasan Khan and another Vs. Hadi Hasan Khan and another). Further prayer to issue directions to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bindki, Fatehpur, restraining respondents no. 2 and 3 from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and occupation over the disputed land i.e. Gata No.895/2.5800 hectare, 1179ka/0.4900 hectare, 1179ka/0.8020 hectare, 1312/1.7330 hectare, 601/0.6240 hectare and 602/0.6070 hectare situated at Village Korwa, Tappa Bazar, Bindki, District Fatehpur without following due legal procedure. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners and private respondents are members and descendants of the same family of Late Yad Ali Khan. The family structure includes three sons i.e. Ismail Khan, Khalil Khan, and Jaleel Khan. Ismail Khan expired issueless, petitioners are the sons of Late Jaleel Khan. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the sons of Late Mehndi Hasan Khan, son of Khalil Khan. The father of the petitioners was recorded as tenure holder of land parcels identified as Gata Nos. 895, 1179Ka, 1179Kha, 1312, 601, and 602, located in Village Korwa, Tappa Bazar, Tehsil Bindki, District Fatehpur. Upon his demise, petitioners' names were duly mutated in revenue records. Disputes arose when respondents nos. 2 and 3 allegedly attempted to disrupt the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the aforementioned lands. Owing to the disturbance, the aggrieved party being the petitioners on 12.04.2018, preferred an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Bindki, to address the issue, whereupon police report was called. The concerned police submitted its report through which confirmed the threat of breach of peace and recommended proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the said report, vide order dated 22.06.2022, SDM issued an order under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C., attaching the disputed lands and directing the Station House Officer (SHO), Bindki, to take possession of the property and appoint an independent custodian. On 13.07.2022, the SHO complied with the SDM's order, attaching the property and handing over custody to an independent person, namely, Laiq Ahmad, in presence of both parties. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2022, respondents preferred Criminal Revision being Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2022 and the same was allowed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur vide impugned order dated 22.06.2022 by way of setting aside the order dated 22.06.2022 and remitted the matter back to the concerned authority for passing orders afresh in light of the observations made by learned revisional court. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that order of attachment must be passed since over the lands in dispute, breach of peace is existing but without considering the said facts, learned revision court set aside the order dated 22.06.2022 and as such, the same may be quashed. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that as per settled law, proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. are necessary to avoid eminent danger of breach of peace. 6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer as made in the petition and supported the impugned order to submit that it is an order of remand and, therefore, this Court should not interfere. 7. By bare perusal of the order impugned dated 22.10.2024, it appears that undisputably, the order impugned is a remand order requiring the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to decide the matter afresh and by such an order, no prejudice is likely to be caused to either of the parties as the matter is to be decided on merits afresh on the basis of evidence of the parties. The petitioners still have every opportunity of canvassing their claim both on facts and on law. Therefore, this Court does not consider to interfere because the petitioners are not aggrieved by such order of remand. 8. The order impugned being a remand order based upon findings of fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, no good ground exists for any kind of interference by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad