1 2025:CGHC:6298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1341 of 2018 Dirbal S/o Shri Sanyasi Gond, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Mungapadar, Tahsil Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Devi Kumari W/o Devi Singh Gond, R/o Village Mungapadar, Tahsil Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Devi Singh Gond, S/o Kham Singh, R/o Village Mungapadar, Tahsil Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 28.12.2016 (Annexure P/2) and be pleased to grant relief in favour of petitioner as prayed in the application, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had made an application under Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. stating that the crops are standing in the field possessed by him and the property is the ancestral property in respect of Khasra No.55, 189, 198, 229 total area 3.58 hectare and the respondents are threatening to forcibly cut the crops and since 12-11-2016, they started cutting the crops of "Udad Dal" and also plugging the Udad Plant. It is here relevant to submit that a Civil Suit is pending before the Civil Judge Class-II, wherein the plaintiff has filed the suit. The present respondents in their written statement dated 29-01-2016 have stated at para No.7 that the possession is with the petitioner. 4. The learned Sub divisional Magistrate, Devbhog District- Gariyaband after appreciating the evidence and material available on record passed the order dated 28.12.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband whereby it has affirmed the order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the 3 learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devbhog and dismissed the revision petition. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 02-04-2018 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 28-12- 2016 (Annexure P-2) are illegal, improper, incorrect and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents had admitted in the civil suit by filing the written statement that the petitioner is in possession over the property. He further submits that the Courts below ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner has succeeded the property and have also considered the fact that the petitioner was in cultivating possession over the property. The learned courts below failed to consider the fact that the documents filed by the petitioner relating to order passed by the Commissioner Raipur Division and the order dated 09-03- 2016 passed by the Tahsildar, wherein the application filed by the respondents of possession has been dismissed. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned courts below. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 4 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that after fully applying its mind the learned Additional Session Judge, Gariyaband, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 02/2017, which warrants no interference by this Court. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the revisional Court has not committed any illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal