1 2025:CGHC:6702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2993 of 2024 1 - Hempushpa Dahire W/o Suraj, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village-Kodapuri, Police Station-Kunda, Tahsil-Pandaria, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Suraj S/o Dwarika, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village-Kodapuri, Police Station-Kunda, Tahsil-Pandaria, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kuldeep S/o Santram, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village-Kodapuri, Police Station-Kunda, Tahsil-Pandaria, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Kuleshwari D/o Santram, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village-Kodapuri, Police Station-Kunda, Tahsil-Pandaria, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pandaria, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Shri Vikash Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State Ms. Prabha Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023 vide order dated 16/08/2024, passed in Criminal Revision No.02/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, arising out of the order dated 21/12/2023 and 19/01/2024 passed in Criminal Case No. NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.03 10:54:17 +0530 2 202312081100023/Section 145 of Cr.P.C Year 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pandaria, District-Kabirdham (C.G.). 3. The respondents herein filed an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., stating therein that the land bearing khasra No. 231/1 admeasuring area 0.1540 hectare/0.38 acre situated at Village Kodapuri, P.H.No. 28, R.I.C. Pandaria, District-Kabirdham is owned and recorded in the name of respondents No. 1 and the said land has been purchased by registered sale deed from one Gangabai wife of Nandram Satnami and thereafter the said land has been mutated in the name of respondent No. 1 in the revenue records. The respondents have constructed the house over 0.03 acre in which Anganbadi Centre is being run and remaining land is being cultivated by the respondents. On 29.10.2023 at about 8.30 PM, the petitioners have raised dispute in respect of subject land and ousted the respondents from the subject property. The respondents made complaint before the police authorities, but no cognizance was taken on their complaint and the petitioners are starting dispute in respect of subject land, therefore the respondents have filed application under Section 145 of CrPC. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed preliminary order and directed the parties to produce the documents relating to ownership of the subject property and after serving notice the petitioners filed his reply and submitted that they are in peaceful possession of the subject land and house since long and the respondents never in possession of the subject property, therefore, the proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC is not maintainable. Vide order dated 19/01/2024 the SDM has rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order petitioner preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge, 3 Kabirdham and the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision of the petitioners, hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are in peaceful possession of the subject land and house since long and the respondents never in possession of the subject property, therefore, the proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC is not maintainable. He further submits that the matter is pending before the Civil Court and the civil Court has ordered against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 as well as learned State counsel have supported the order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. I have perused the record minutely and found that the order dated 21.12.2023 and order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are in accordance with the law and procedure and action has been taken as per the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate need not for any interference and the Civil Court has also rightly passed the order. The right of title of the property is only decided by the Civil Court not by the revenue Court. Hence, the revenue Court has rightly passed the order and rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners. 7. The original record be send back to the trial Court forthwith. 8. Accordingly, CRMP is dismissed. Sd/-Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde