1 2025:CGHC:1001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 875 of 2018 1. Kanshiram S/o Ramdeen Chandranahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chorbhaththi, Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2. Malikram S/o Ramdeen Chandranahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chorbhaththi, Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3. Dwarika Prasad S/o Ramdeen Chandranahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chorbhaththi, Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4. Radhabai Wd/o Ramdeen Chandranahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Chorbhaththi, Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1. Kushal S/o Salikram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Chorbhaththi, Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Presently At Anand Tailors, 9 Pushpanjali Complex, In Front of Niharika Talkies, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 01 : Mr. Ajay Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 02/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.08 11:30:56 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ajay Chandra, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 01 and Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 02/State. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) passed in Cr. Rev. Case No. 01/2016, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, District Janjgir – Champa in Criminal Case No. 17/2005 has been afÏrmed in which the SDO had passed a preliminary order in respect of claim of their case. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the Respondent No. 1, Kushal, filed an application under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). He stated that in Village Chorbhaththi, P.C. No. 18, R.I., and Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), account No. 45 has 08 khasras and 2.876 hectares of land. Specifically, khasra No. 4 in account No. 45 has 0.779 hectares of land, which is jointly owned by Kushal and the petitioners. Kushal planted Swarna Paddy on his share of the land, which is now ripe and ready for harvest. However, 3 the petitioners/revisoners allegedly told others that they would not allow Kushal to harvest the crop and threatened to harm him and his family if they entered the field. As a result, Kushal and his family are fearful and intimidated. If the respondent or his family members attempt to harvest the standing crop, there is a likelihood that the petitioners/revisoners will create an unpleasant incident. Given that the respondent is a poor and weak individual, while the revisioners are strong and capable, the respondent prayed before the Sub- Divisional OfÏcer to seize the standing crops on the entire land, including both the respondent's and revisioners' shares. The respondent requested that the seized crops be handed over to an impartial person. 4. The Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, registered the application as Criminal Case No. 17/2015. He directed the concerned Station House OfÏcer and Circle Patwari to submit a report regarding the application filed by the respondent. Additionally, he ordered the revisioners to appear before him. The Station House OfÏcer, Jaijaipur, submitted reports on August 8, 2014, December 9, 2014, February 11, 2015, and July 13, 2015. The applicant's mother, Durpatibai, had lodged a complaint at Jaijaipur Police Station, but was advised to seek court intervention. Currently, both parties are cultivating the land, which may lead to disputes during harvesting. Patwari Halka No. 18 of Village Chorbhaththi also reported a potential breach of peace between the parties during harvesting. As both parties have been allowed to continue cultivating, there is a high likelihood of disputes arising between them during harvesting. 4 5. The Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, passed a preliminary order based on reports from the Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Jaijaipur, and the Patwari. The order stated that the dispute between Kushal Chandra and others versus Kanshiram and others still exists. After reviewing the reports, the ofÏcer concluded that there is a possibility of a breach of peace over possession of the disputed land. Therefore, both parties are expected to appear in court, either personally or through counsel, and submit their claims in writing regarding the actual possession of the disputed land. The petitioners, aggrieved by the preliminary order of the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, filed a revision petition (Cr.Rev.No.01/2016) before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). They contested the order, claiming it was passed without considering the facts of the case, violating the law, judicial process, and principles of natural justice. The petitioners argued that the trial Court's order deserved to be dismissed, as it lacked proper reasoning and failed to address crucial facts. Specifically, they pointed out that the court seized the disputed land and paddy crop without sufÏcient evidence. Moreover, the Court did not make all shareholders parties to the case, nor did it provide adequate opportunities for hearing or presenting relevant documents to determine the actual occupation of the disputed land. Furthermore, the petitioners emphasized that multiple co-shareholders were in joint possession of the disputed land, including the present parties. Therefore, they argued that the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer's proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. were illegal and lacked 5 jurisdiction. During the trial, the court acknowledged the joint possession of the parties and other co-shareholders, which could lead to a breach of peace. In such circumstances, the petitioners contended that proceedings under Sections 107/108 of the Cr.P.C. would have been more appropriate. However, the trial court failed to take this approach, thereby committing an error of law in passing the impugned preliminary order. 6. The revisional court, after reviewing the documents and hearing arguments from both parties, held that the trial court (Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti) did not commit any illegality while passing the preliminary order. Through an order dated January 4, 2018, the revisional Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial Court's order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts have not followed the judicial process and thus, committed miscarriage of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that the preliminary order passed by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti is not a speaking and reasoned order. As such both the orders of Courts deserve to be set aside. He also submitted that the revisional Court has not mentioned any law on which ground the revision petition is dismissed. On the contrary the order of learned trial Court 30.11.2015 is against the settled principle of law, therefore, the said orders are liable to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 01 as well as respondent No. 02/State supported the orders 6 passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 10. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that based on the reports submitted by the Station House OfÏcer, Jaijaipur Police Station, and Patwari Halka No. 18, Gram Chorbhaththi, the Sub- Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, passed a preliminary order on November 30, 2015. The order stated that a dispute exists between Kushal Chandra and others versus Kanshiram and others. The Sub- Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, relied on the reports from the Station House OfÏcer, Jaijaipur Police Station, and Patwari Halka No. 18, Gram Chorbhaththi, Tehsil Jaijaipur, which indicated that there is a possibility of breach of peace regarding the possession of the disputed land. Therefore, both parties were expected to appear in Court on December 16, 2015, at 11:00 a.m., either personally or through counsel, and submit their written statements regarding the actual possession of the disputed land. The preliminary order was passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and does not appear to be illegal. However, upon reviewing the records of the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, it appears that the petitioners did not adequately present their case before the Sub- Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court is just and proper. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for 7 the parties and also considering the impugned order passed by the revisional Court as well as learned trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned revisional Court as well as the learned trial Court does not call for any interference and accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek