1 2025:CGHC:2323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2087 of 2018 Melan Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh Gond Aged About 86 Years R/o Village - Salhekanpa, Police Station And Tahsil- Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Pusau Dhanuhar S/o Late Jhilangi Gond R/o Village - Salhekanpa, Police Station - And Tahsil - Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Roop Ram Naik , Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Roop Ram Naik, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seek to challenge the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) passed 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 135/2018, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kota, District Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 22/17 has been afÏrmed in which the learned SDM, Kota held that the applicant Melansingh, has never had possession of the disputed land. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner purchased land bearing Khasra No. 451/3, measuring 0.405 hectares, situated in Village Salhekanpa, Police Station and Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), through a registered sale deed dated September 30, 1994, from the respondent. The petitioner's name was subsequently recorded in the revenue records. He cultivated the land through his power of attorney holder. During cultivation, the respondent allegedly dispossessed the petitioner from the land by force. The petitioner filed a complaint with the Takhatpur Police Station on August 24, 2017, but no action was taken. The petitioner then moved an application under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kota. 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate summoned an inquiry report from the concerned Patwari, which was submitted on February 20, 2018. The report was prepared by the Tahsildar, Takhatpur, through the Patwari. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application by order dated June 11, 2018. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred a criminal revision before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), which was dismissed by order dated September 22, 2018. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 22.09.2018 is bad in law, illegal, erroneous, thus liable to be set aside. He also submits that bot the Courts have ignored the enquiry report submitted by concerned Patwari, who made inspection in the presence of the villagers/cultivators. Therefore, the order passed by the learned revisional Court as well as learned trial court are against the settled principle of law, therefore, the said orders are liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court. 7. 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. 8. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that there is a dispute between the applicant's attorney and the respondent regarding possession of the disputed land. However, the applicant's attorney and witnesses have not stated that the disputed land is a public place or a common road, which could lead to a breach of peace. According to the consent letter dated July 13, 2017, attached to the trial court's records, Ramphal Yadav had agreed not to cultivate the land. This indicates that the applicant did not have possession of the disputed land on the date of the application, October 9, 2017, or two months prior. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 145 of the Code, the essential elements required for proceedings, namely, a dispute over possession two months prior to the application date 4 and a likelihood of breach of peace due to the dispute, are not established by the available records. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court is just and proper. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for 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 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.18 14:05:34 +0530