1 2025:CGHC:6297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1763 of 2018 1 - Damru S/o Arjun Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Matnar, Bakawand, P. S. Karvapand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Niranjan S/o Late Hari Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Matnar, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, 3 - Arjun S/o Antu Aged About 82 Years R/o Village Matnar, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - (A) Smt. Sukri W/o Late Mangal Sai R/o Village Matnar, P. S. Karvapand, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 1.1 - (B) Bali S/o Late Mangal Sai R/o Village Matnar, P. S. Karvapand, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (C) Laxman S/o Late Mangal Sai R/o Village Matnar, P. S. Karvapand, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 1.3 - (D) Bhutnath S/o Late Mangal Sai R/o Village Matnar, P. S. Karvapand, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Debo S/o Harishchandra R/o Village Matnar, P. S. Karvapand, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3 - Asai S/o Manglu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Matnar, P. S. Karvapand, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Butu S/o Sonadhar Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Matnar, P. S. Karvapand, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Manglu S/o Sonadhar Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Matnar, P. S. Karvapand, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 7 - Sindhu S/o Liti R/o Village Matnar, Tahsil Bakavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.6/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Bharat Gulbani, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.6/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 3 (i) Call for the records from the learned Trial Court. (ii) Set Aside the order dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar Place Jagdalpur. (iii) Set Aside the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagdalpur (C.G.) (iv) any other relief as the Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the Police Chowki Karwapand filed a complaint back in 2000 regarding land with Khasra No. 179 and 181, which totals 6.70 acres. This led to a case being registered under Section 145 CRPC by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and the parties involved were summoned. As the case progressed, the SDM asked the police for a report on the potential breach of peace, which they provided in 2001. The police stated that the applicants, or Party No.2, had been in possession of the land for the past ten years. However, they also noted that the non-applicants had possession of some portions of the land. The non-applicants claimed that the land in question was actually given to them during a partition, and they started a quarrel with the applicants. They also complained that the applicants had cultivated paddy on the land, which had been seized by the Gram Panchayat. The police ultimately 4 reported that this dispute over possession could lead to a breach of peace. 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) passed a preliminary order on June 27, 2001, asking the parties to file written statements. However, before the applicants could file their written statements, the SDM passed an order of attachment of crops behind the back of the applicants, directing the police to seize the crops and give them to an independent person. The police seized the crops and gave them to the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. After filing written statements and recording evidence, the SDM passed an order on June 3, 2011, holding that the non-applicants had been dispossessed and ordering restoration of possession. The applicants preferred a criminal revision against this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, which was dismissed on August 5, 2013. The applicants have now filed a civil suit against the non-applicants, but the non-applicants are using the final order under Section 145 CrPC to forcefully dispossess the applicants from the entire lands. The revisional Court has again rejected the applicants' revision petition, stating that the police report indicates the applicants came into possession due to a report by the Revenue Inspector, and therefore the non-applicants' possession would be deemed. Hence, the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police report mentions that the incident is 20 years old, which means the SDM erred in assuming jurisdiction, as Section 145 CrPC only allows 5 the SDM to assume jurisdiction if the date of dispossession is within two months, not otherwise. The revisional Court failed to notice that the dispute was initially about sugarcane, but there is no evidence regarding sugarcane, and instead, evidence was led regarding paddy. The crop was cultivated by the petitioners, which proves that the respondents' case is false, and the seizure of paddy from the petitioners supports this claim. He further submit submits the revisional Court's finding is based on presumption and assumptions, which is illegal, and the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the evidence to determine the possession of the parties two months prior to the filing of the complaint, instead passing an order based on conjectures. He also submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case, the essential elements prescribed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant did not lead any evidence relating to their complaint regarding sugarcane. The seizure of paddy crops from the applicants proves their possession, but this was ignored by the revisional Court. Learned SDM and revisional Court failed to consider that on the date of the complaint (July 22, 2000), neither paddy nor sugarcane was ready for harvesting. The SDM's preliminary order only mentioned 1.50 acres as disputed land, but the final order increased the area to the entire lands, which is beyond the SDM's jurisdiction. Further no evidence was led regarding which portion of Khasra No. 179 and 181 is the subject matter of dispute and the revisional Court failed to comply with the 6 directions issued by the higher Court in CrMP No. 207/2014, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 03.06.2011, passed by the trial Court and judgment dated 21.05.2018, passed by the revisional Court, is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 7. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the revisional Court has held that the Khasra Panchasala for the year 1999-2000, given by the Patwari on 24/2/2000, mentions that the possession of the land with Khasra numbers 179, 181, 198, 211, 542, and 1035, with areas of 1.84, 0.87, 0.87, 0.73, 0.79, and 1.12, respectively, is with Manglesay, Buddha, Manglu, and Somn. An Istigasa was presented on 29/8/2000, which also states that the possession of the disputed land is with Party No. 1, the non- applicants. The Khasra Panchasala for 1999-2000 shows that the possession of the disputed land is with Party No. 1, the non- applicants. Party No. 1, Manglesay, reported the incident to the police station at Karpaund on 22/7/2000, and the Istigasa was presented on 29/8/2000, which indicates that the possession of the disputed land was with Party No. 1, the non-applicants, within two months of the report being made and the Istigasa being presented. 7 8. Further, Before passing the preliminary order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jagdalpur had asked for a report from the Karpaund Police Station, which, after investigation, stated that Party No. 2 (the revisionists) had been cultivating the land with Khasra numbers 179 and 181, totaling 6.70 acres, for the past 10 years. However, when it was revealed that the land was in the name of Manglesay and his family, Party No. 2 abandoned the land. A year prior, when it was reported that the land belonged to the revisionists, they started cultivating paddy, which led to a dispute that could potentially lead to a breach of peace in the near future. This indicates that Manglesay and others had possession of the land within two months of reporting to the Karpaund police station and submitting the Istigasa. After the Istigasa was submitted, the revisionists forcibly and wrongly dispossessed Manglesay and others. After hearing both parties, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on June 3, 2011, declaring Manglesay and others as the actual possessors of the disputed land, Khasra numbers 179 and 181, with an area of 6.70 acres, and restraining Damru and others from entering the disputed land, which warrants no interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal