1 2025:CGHC:3705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1504 of 2018 1 - Praveen Kumar Patel S/o Shri Bhagirathi Patel Aged About 40 Years Caste- Kunvi, R/o- Village Beliya Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shakuntala W/o Praveen Kumar Patel Aged About 35 Years Caste- Kunvi, R/o- Village Beliya Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Ramvati Sahu W/o Budhnath Sahu Caste Teli, R/o- Village Beliya, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gunjan Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 21.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. Gunjan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the above, 2 the impugned order dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) and 29.03.2017 (Annexure P/2) may kindly be set-aside and the application under Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. may be dismissed.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that an application under Section 145 and 146, of Cr.P.C was filed by the respondent Ramwati Sahu before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sonhat, District Koriya (C.G.) alleging that the land survey No.332/1, area 0.18 hectare situated at Village Beliya, which is in possession and ownership of the respondent and she is cultivating the said land for long. As such, it was further alleged that the present petitioners are interfering with the physical possession of the respondent and they want to usurp the land with the help of criminal force and they have forcibly cultivated the land and intimidated her. Therefore, possession has been taken away from the respondent which may be restituted. After the service of notice the petitioners/non-applicants filed their reply to the said application and contended that the disputed land has been sold out by the actual land owner Premchand Yadav in the year 2010 for a consideration of Rs.1.00 lac and possession was handed over in 2010 to the petitioners and they are in constant physical possession thereof and it was prayed that the application may be rejected because it is the dispute of title and not of mere possession. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sonhat District Koriya (C.G.) called for the report of Halka Patwari, in which it is transpired that the land is in possession of the 3 petitioners for long and the respondent is not in physical possession of the land. Thus the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sonhat without appreciating the provisions of Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C recorded the finding of title in favour of the respondent and allowed the application granting injunction against the petitioners. Thereafter the revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge by the petitioners, which has also been dismissed by order dated 26/04/2018 for no rhyme and reason. Hence this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below have utterly failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. and a wrong conclusion, has been drawn, so the orders impugned deserve to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. The learned Courts below have recorded the finding of title in favour of the respondent, whereas the title cannot be adjudicated in the proceeding of Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C and merely the physical possession has to be declared on the evidence. Apart from this, there is an ample evidence on record that on the date of dispute the physical possession of the petitioners has been found, so by way of Section 145/146 of Cr.P.C the possession cannot be restituted and the injunction cannot be granted. The learned Courts below have not appreciated the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners in support of their title and possession. Moreover, the physical possession for the period more than two months cannot be 4 restored. In the present case, the petitioners have remained in possession since 2010, so the present case is entirely beyond the purview of Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. and it is the sheer abuse of the process of law. Over, and above, the present is a case pertinent to the dispute of title which can only be tried and adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents appended with petition. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned trial Court allowed the application of the respondent granting injunction against the petitioners holding that it is clear from the photocopy of the registered sale deed dated 28.09.2015 that the questioned suit land Kha.No. 332/1 measuring 0.18 hectare has been purchased by the respondent Ramvati Sahu from Vikema Premchand A. Ramavatar Ahir for Rs. 175000.00 (one lakh seventy five thousand rupees). It is clear from the Patwari, Revenue Inspector report and statement that paddy crop was planted by the respondent herein on the suit land which was forcibly ploughed by Praveen Kumar Patel with his personal tractor and paddy crop was planted. The questioned suit land has been purchased by the respondent herein through a registered sale deed on which the petitioners were in possession who has been forcibly evicted by Praveen Kumar Patel. Further, the revisional Court has affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 5 Nd rejected the revision filed by the petitioners holding that the trial court has passed the order after considering the relevant provisions of the Cr. P. C., presenting the investigation report and Panchnama and recording the statements of the witnesses, which is not shown to be erroneous due to lack of correctness, validity and propriety. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the finding recorded by the revisional Court while affirming the order of the learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the revisional Court. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.22 17:22:33 +0530