1 2025:CGHC:44681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6342 of 2024 1 - Shivram Agrawal S/o Late Shri Rajaram Agrawal, Aged About 54 Years R/o 403/11/b, Alkapuri Society, Gidc Ankleshwar, District- Bharuch, Gujrat, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Sanjay Gupta S/o Late Yamuna Prasad Gupta, Aged 48 Years, R/o C-2, Gawri, Apartments, Gali No.1, Near Petrol Pump, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rakesh Agrawal S/o Late Rajaram Agrawal, Aged About 49 Years R/o A-206, Kuber Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Police Station-Pandri, District-Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhavani, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Jamul, District-Durg (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) 6 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Malay Shrivastava and Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State/Respondents No.2 to 6 : Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.11.04 18:13:07 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02/09/2025 1. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition: “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records of the case in which the memo dated 22/11/2024 bearing no. 1358/Pr. S.D.M./2024 has been passed by the Respondent no. 03, Durg. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the memo dated 22/11/2024 bearing no. 1358/ Pr. S.D.M./2024 passed by Respondent no. 03. iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the amended memo dated 22/11/2024, which was provided to the petitioner on 28/11/2024, bearing no. 1360/P.S.D.M./2024 passed by Respondent no. 03. iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the possession warrant dated 02/12/2024 bearing no. 2008/ Pr. 1 Add. Tah./2024 passed by the respondent no. 04. v. That, this Hon'ble Court may grant compensation to the petitioner and take appropriate action against the respondent authorities. vi. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems /t and 3 proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner with a view to conduct business at Village Bhilai, District Durg has obtained on lease the land bearing Khasra / Survey No. 459, 460 and 462 admeasuring 40000 sq. ft. situated at Vaishali Nagar of Village Bhilai from Chhattisgarh Industrial Development Corporation (CIDC) after which the petitioner executed a dealer ship agreement with IOCL for Dealer Controlled Outlet on 27/10/2009. The petitioner being a resident of Gujrat appointed respondent No. 1, who is the brother of the petitioner, as manager of the petrol pump. However, the dealership agreement was terminated by IOCL on 19/10/2020. In order to obtain the possession of the land, respondent No. 1 /led a civil suit before the Learned Additional District Judge, Durg which was dismissed and the judgment passed by the Learned District Judge was upheld by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter, based on the order passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 80- A/2016 the petitioner /led an application before the respondent No. 03 in which the possession of the petitioner was maintained, against the said order of the respondent No. 03 a Criminal Revision was preferred by respondent No. 1 bearing no. 115/2020 before the 8th Additional Session Judge, Durg which was remanded back to the respondent No. 03 to decide the question of law raised by the Learned Sessions 4 Judge in Criminal Revision No. 115/2020, however, to the utter dismay of the petitioner the respondent No. 03 in lieu of the order passed in Criminal Revision granted possession of the suit land to the respondent No. 1 which was challenged by the petitioner and the revision of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 10/02/2023 and the possession of the suit land was transferred to the petitioner on 18/10/2024. After the possession of the suit land was transferred to the petitioner, respondent No. 01 again preferred an application before respondent No. 03 which was registered as Revenue Case No. 884/2024 and a notice was issued, without furnishing any relevant documents, to the petitioner on 08/11/2024 to remain present on 11/11/2024 at 2 p.m. to which an interim reply was /led by the petitioner which was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the impugned order dated 21/11/2024 was passed by the respondent No. 03 and the impugned memo dated 22/11/2024 was passed by the respondent No. 03 to comply with the order dated 21/11/2024 without adhering to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 28/11/2024 on the request made by the petitioner the execution of the possession order was stayed for 4 days, i.e., up to 01/12/2024 and immediately on 02/12/2024 possession warrant was issued by the respondent No. 04 and in pursuance to the said warrant the respondent No. 1 took over the possession of the suit property. Hence, the petition. 5 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 22/11/2024 passed by respondent No. 03 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned memo passed is against the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not aCorded opportunity of hearing. The proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been closed. The impugned memo has nowhere mentioned under which provision the order has been passed. The petitioner was not supplied with copy of the application /led by the respondent No. 01 before the respondent No. 03. The respondent No. 03 while passing the impugned memo has completely disregarded the order and judgment passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Case No. 80-A/2019. The order passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Durg was upheld by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is a settled law that once the issue of possession is /nally decided by the Civil Court and order of the Civil Court is con/rmed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondent No. 03 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for possession. Another civil suit bearing no. 07-A/2021 is pending before the Additional District Judge, Durg. The respondent No. 03 does not have the jurisdiction to decide the question of possession u/s 145 of Cr.P.C., 1973 if a civil suit is pending before a civil court. The act of the respondent No. 01 is nothing but a back handed attempt to harass the petitioner. The order passed by the 6 respondent No. 03 is contrary to the settled principle of law that possession follows title but title does not follow possession. The order passed by the respondent No. 03 is not only passed by usurping its jurisdiction but is also against the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent No. 03 has passed the impugned order on the ground that the learned trial court, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has nowhere passed a clear order for grant of possession in favor the petitioner. The remedy against the ground taken by the respondent No. 03 in the impugned order dated 21/11/2024 lies before the civil court. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner /led instant petition against the impugned memo dated 22/11/2024 passed by the SDO and the possession warrant dated 2/12/2024. He further submitted that on 3/9/2024, the petitioner /led an application before the Collector, Durg stating about the series of the litigation happened between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. In the said application, the petitioner has alleged that respondent No.1 Rakesh Agrawal is trying to obstruct the peaceful possession of the subject land and prayed for protecting the possession of the land as per order passed by the SDM, Chhawani, District- Durg dated 30/5/2024 and take necessary action to implement the order passed by the SDM Chhawani, dated 30/5/2024. In the said application, the petitioner has not sought the relief for delivery of possession of the disputed 7 land. Acting on the said application of the petitioner, the concerned authority vide order dated 30/9/2024 directed for handing over possession of the disputed land to the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by the higher court without hearing respondent No.1. When respondent No.1 came to be aware of the order dated 30/9/2024, he /led an application before the SDO stating that no Court in the earlier civil suit has granted the decree in favor of the petitioner for grant of decree of possession and the counter claim of the petitioner has been dismissed and hence, prayed for review of the order dated 3/9/2024 and restoration of the possession of respondent No.1. The SDO vide order 22/11/2024 passed the order for restoration of possession in favor of respondent No.1 on the ground that no Court in the earlier civil suit has granted the decree of possession in favor of the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, the memo was issued to the Additional Tahsildar directing him to hand over the possession of the disputed land to respondent No.1 and in pursuance of the same, vide panchnama dated 2/12/2024, the possession of the disputed land has been handed over to respondent No.1. Since the possession of the disputed land has already being handed over to respondent No.1 in compliance of the order dated 22/11/2024, the instant petition has become infructuous. Moreover, the SDO has rightly passed the order dated 22/11/2024 handing over the possession of the disputed land to respondent No.1 since in the earlier order dated 8/11/2024 the possession was handed over to the petitioner 8 without their being any relief in this regard by the petitioner in his application and there being no order of the Supreme Court or this Court whereby it was directed that the possession of the disputed land be handed over to the petitioner and hence, the order passed by the SDO is completely legal and as per the provision of law. Moreover, since the impugned order has been passed by the SDO, the same is subject to appeal and revision as per the provision of law and hence, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed fail on account of availability of alternative remedy. The petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court as on one hand in his application before the Collector he has prayed for protection of the petitioner’s possession. On the other hand, the petitioner has himself /led a civil suit for declaration, possession and injunction in respect of the same disputed land before the competent civil court which shows that the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed land and he has himself averred in the plaint that some part of the disputed land is in possession of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the defendant No. 1 and thus, the petitioner has taken false plea before this Court. Since the petitioner has already /led suit before the competent civil court for delivery of possession thus, he cannot be permitted to seek the same relief from the SDO and the same constitutes abuse of process of law and since the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court, he is not entitled for any relief much less the discretionary relief. Learned counsel further submitted that 9 the present petition is bereft of any merit and as such deserves to be dismissed throughout with cost. 5. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.2 to 6 submitted that the factual matrix of the case leading to passing of the impugned order Annexure P1 dated 21-11-2024 restoring possession of disputed properties to Respondent No.1 are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 are real brothers and on 19th July 2016, the respondent No. 1 had /led a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties comprised in Survey No. 459, 460 and 462, area admeasuring 40,000 sq. ft. (Petrol pump named Gaurav Filling Station established over 10,000 sq. ft. and servant quarter and oFce of the Gaurav Filling Station existing over 3,000 sq. ft.) situated at Village Kohka, Tehsil Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh contending that the said suit properties had fallen to the share of the plaintiC (Respondent No.1 herein) a family partition or family arrangement amongst the brothers. However, since the defendant No.2 (the petitioner in this petition) was committing breach of conditions of the said family arrangement and was trying to alienate the disputed property in violation of the family arrangement and he was continuously interfering in the plaintiC's possession and enjoyment, hence, the /ling of the civil suit was necessary, giving cause of action to the respondent No. 1/ (PlaintiC in the Civil suit). It is submitted that upon institution of the said civil suit it was numbered as 10 civil suit No. 80A of 2016 in the court of learned 9th Additional District Judge, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Upon notice of the said civil suit being issued to the defendants, the brothers amongst the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the said civil suit, /led his written statement in which he disputed the claim of the plaintiC/respondent No. 1. He, however, candidly admitted that the respondent No. 1 is his brother, and he had been appointed/assessed as manager and administrator over the disputed property through the family arrangement since he was putting up out of State of Chhattisgarh at Ankleshwar, Gujarat, and was running business over there. It would not be out of place to place on record here that along with the written statement the petitioner/defendant No.2 in Civil Suit No. 80A of 2016 had /led a counterclaim for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties, contending that he had got lease of the disputed property from CSIDC for 30 years from 05-03-2004 to 04-03-2034. Hence, the said property belonged to his ownership. However, the CSIDC was never impleaded as a party either to the civil suit or in the counterclaim. He further contended that upon getting lease of the land, he had acquired dealership from Indian Oil Corporation by virtue of an agreement dated 27-10-2009, and he had been issued license to permit sale of petrol or diesel in his name. Hence, he claimed that a decree of declaration of title in respect of the suit land be issued in his favour along with a decree for permanent injunction. 11 6. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the Civil Court did not /nd the family arrangement which was exhibited as Exhibit P12 to have been executed legally, likewise the Power of Attorney dated 15-11-2014 said to have been executed by the Petitioner in favour of Respondent No. 1 was also not found to have been proved by Respondent No.1. Learned Trial Court was of the view that the family arrangement required registration and in absence of registration, inability to use the same for even collateral purpose. All the brothers and sisters were not parties to the agreement and entire properties were not included. As far as the issue of possession of disputed property by the plaintiC therein/Respondent No. 1 herein, the Civil Court was of the view that delivery of possession to the plaintiC was subject to ful/llment of obligations towards /rm M/s Ganesh Olio Chem Pvt. Ltd., Siltara, Raipur, and the plaintiC had failed to prove the discharge of said liability and consequently the /nding of possession was not held in favour of the Respondent No. 1. In ultimate analysis, the Court has given /ndings that the Respondent No. 1/the PlaintiC in Civil Suit No. 80A of 2016, having failed to prove his possession over disputed property, the suit for declaration and injunction was not maintainable in absence of relief of possession. Similarly, in the same civil suit, the Civil Court also dismissed the counterclaim /led by the petitioner refuting the claim of the petitioner for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the disputed property in his own name. From the judgment passed by the Trial Court, it would appear that it 12 was inconclusive with regard to either title or possession. The judgment passed by the Trial Court would also make it clear that there was no adjudication on the issue of possession or title with reference to either parties to litigation. Further, the /ndings recorded by the Trial Court with regard to requirement of registration of family partition and in absence of registration, inability to use the same for even collateral purpose is also contradictory since, on one hand, the trial Court held that the original family settlement or arrangement had not been produced before the court while, on the other hand, it proceeded to record a /nding that registration of the family partition was necessary ignoring the legal position that registration of a deed of partition is necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced to writing and the document creates rights in immovable properties. If the document merely records a past arrangement or is a memorandum prepared after the arrangement, it does not require registration. 7. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the fact that all the members of the family had not been impleaded or the details of all the properties were not shown in the family partition, was not a ground available to the learned trial court, all the more so, when there was no pleading to that eCect by either of the parties and the family partition was admitted. Be that as it may, after dismissal of the suit, the Respondent No. 1 /led a /rst appeal before this Court which was registered as 13 FA No. 431 of 2019 (Rakesh Agarwal v. Laljee and 3 others). However, vide Annexure P/9 dated 29-04-2024, this Court was pleased to dismiss the said /rst appeal while aFrming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. An SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was registered as SLP (Civil) Diary No. 24525 of 2024, also met with the fate of dismissal, vide Annexure P/10. Since the trial court in the civil suit had not adjudicated the issue of either title or possession in respect of the disputed properties the dispute between the parties with regard to possession continued and apprehending a likelihood of breach of peace, the police had /led an Istigasa for drawing proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C., vide ANNEXURE R/1. The said Istigasa having been /led before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cantonment (Chhawani), District Durg, and he being satis/ed of existence of circumstances likely to cause breach of peace, had passed preliminary order on 14-09-2020, vide Annexure P-11, followed by the /nal order dated 6-11-2020. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 6-11-2020 placed at page 135 of the petition would make it clear that the learned SDM in the said order dated 6-11-2020 found that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land on the date of passing of order dated 17-09-2019 by the Civil Court. Respondent No. 2 was raising a dispute with regard to possession over the said land and there was an apprehension of breach of peace. Hence, the learned SDM ordered that as per section 145(6) Cr.P.C., the respondent No. 1 shall not interfere in the 14 possession of the petitioner until the petitioner is evicted from the suit land by following due process of law. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6-11-2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 882 of 2020 under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., the Respondent No. 1 herein had /led a Criminal Revision registered as Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2020 before the Learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg and the Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 8-3-2021, Annexure P-12 while setting aside the order dated 6-11-2020, remanded the matter back to the SDM to consider the issue of maintainability of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the light of decision given by the Civil Court with a further direction that in the event the SDM /nds that it has jurisdiction to decide the matter, then after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties, to pass a fresh order. Post remand, the SDM again proceeded in the 145 proceedings and passed a fresh order dated 04-07-2022 vide Annexure P/13.This time the SDM considered the matter and was of the view that the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. relates to the question of possession rather than right to a claim for possession. Upon consideration of the material on record, observed that In the civil suit, the claim of none of the parties to the dispute had been adjudicated. The possession was with the non-applicant party No. 2, that is, the respondent No. 1 herein. Upon independent assessment of the materials before it, the learned SDM came to conclusion that Although the deed of partition and the power of attorney had been challenged by the none applicant Party No. 1/ petitioner, 15 no material was placed by the petitioner to show his actual possession over the disputed land, either on the date of preliminary order or two months next before the same. The learned SDM was also of the view that the said aspect of the matter would be evident from the order dated 16-05-2017 passed by the learned civil court in favour of the respondent No. 1, that is, the order of temporary injunction. The SDM also found that petrol pump on the disputed land was being operated by the respondent No. 1. During pendency of the First Appeal No. 431 of 2019, before this Court, the petitioner had created obstruction and sought to interfere in the possession of the respondent No. 1. Having so found, the Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered that the petitioner/ non- applicant party No. 1, would not interfere in the possession of the non-applicant party No. 2/, the respondent No. 1, until he is evicted therefrom by following due process of law. 8. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid order dated 4-7-2022 was subject matter of challenge before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg at the instance of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2022 wherein by order dated 10-2-2023, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate post-remand relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of UP and others, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 427. In pursuance of order dated 10.2.2023 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, the 16 petitioner moved an application to the SDM seeking restoration of possession of the property to him, Vide Annexure P15. Upon the said application made by the petitioner, the then SDM, vide order dated 11-05-2023, directed the Tehsildar Bhilai Nagar to ensure status quo ante 04.07.2022 i.e. to restore the status of land as it existed prior to his order dated 04.07.2022. Thereafter, looking to the fact that in the meantime, the respondent No. 1 was proceeding with the construction over the land, the SDM had also passed a direction on dated 09-10-2023 Annexure P-16 to stop further construction over the land by the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, by order dated 30.05.2024, the SDM had passed an order to the eCect that against the order passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 80A of 2016, the First Appeal had been dismissed. Therefore, there was no purpose in keeping the 145 proceedings pending. Hence, the SDM, coming to conclusion that the present was a dispute with regard to partition between the parties, had ordered closure of the 145 proceedings vide order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P/17). After closure of the 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings as stated above, the petitioner (who had lost in the Civil Suit since his counter claim was also dismissed), he moved an application to the Collector seeking restoration of possession alleging that the present Respondent No.1 was obstructing him in enjoyment of disputed land. In this application, the petitioner suppressed the fact of pendency of Civil Suit No. 7A of 2021 before the learned Additional District Judge, Durg, which was /xed for 17 hearing on 14-11-2024. Upon said application being made by the petitioner to the collector, the matter was marked by Collector to the respondent No. 3, SDM. Whereupon, the respondent No. 3, taking into account the entire fact situation from the date of institution of the suit till the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2022, had passed an order thereby, directing the additional Tahsildar Bhilai and the Station House OFcer, Police Station Jamul, to take steps for restoration of possession of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure Ex-P- 19, dated 30-09-2024. 9. Learned State Counsel further submitted that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.9.2024 passed by respondent No. 3 SDM, Respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Respondent No. 3, thereby pointing out the fact that not only the civil suit /led by the Respondent No. 1 had been dismissed, but also the counterclaim which was /led by the Petitioner denying the relief of declaration of title and injunction in his favour. He had also brought to the notice of the Respondent No. 3 regarding pendency of Civil Suit No. 7A of 2021 for possession of the same disputed property before the learned Additional District Judge Durg, which was /xed for hearing on 14-11-2024, a fact which was suppressed by the petitioner while obtaining order of restoration of possession in his favour vide order dated 30.09.2024. It is clear that when the suit for possession with regard to the same disputed 18 property between the same parties is pending consideration before a competent civil court, no parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have been taken recourse to by the petitioner to restore the relief of possession. Upon applications being made by the Respondent No. 1, a notice was issued to the Petitioner on 8-11-2024 vide Annexure-P-21 therein, putting the petitioner to notice of the contents of the entire application made by the Respondent No. 1 for his appearance on 11-11-2024 at 2 p.m. The petitioner had notice of the contents of the application moved by the Respondent No. 1 and he sent a reply on 11-11-2024, thereby seeking adjournment in the matter till 21-11-2024. The State/respondents had reason to believe that the petitioner somehow wanted to get over the next date of civil suit which was /led by him for possession and which was /xed for 14.11. 2024. 10. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the civil suit /led by the petitioner, which was pending inter-parties before Learned Additional District Judge, Durg, registered as Civil Suit No. 7A of 2021, was /xed for 14-11-2024, and in that view of the matter, Respondent No. 1 had also objected to the petitioner's seeking adjournment in the matter, since the petitioner had obtained restoration of possession in his favour by suppressing the fact of pendency of the civil suit. Thereafter, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner had also appeared in the case on 18-11-2024. The said power of 19 attorney holder although used to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner on earlier occasions, but he appeared on 18- 11-2024 only for the purpose of seeking adjournment on the excuse of non-supply of copy of application /led by the respondent No.1. However, on 18-11-2024 the said request for adjournment of the matter was rejected by the respondent No. 3 since the petitioner was trying to protract the litigation despite contents of the application /led by the respondent No.1 was reproduced verbatim in the notice the petitioner, vide Annexure P/21 dated 8.11.2024. Thereafter, the power of attorney of the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Gupta had appeared on the date of passing of the impugned order Annexure P/1. Although the said Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Gupta was competent to appear and take part in the proceedings as he used to represent the petitioner in all earlier proceedings and also used to represent the case of the petitioner. But, on 21-11-2024 when the impugned order was passed, despite his remaining present, did not participate in the proceedings on dated 21-11-2024. That, thereafter the impugned order was passed on 22.11.2024 and in pursuance of order of 22.11.2024, possession of the disputed land has been restored to the Respondent No.01 on 02.12.2024. However, on this date, it would be apposite to state here that taking into account the fact that in the order passed by the Civil Court, there was no clear-cut /nding regarding possession of the petitioner and also being conscious of the fact that a civil suit has been /led by the petitioner seeking 20 relief of possession wherein the issues between the parties have been joined with regard to possession, the Learned SDM, the Respondent No. 3 has recalled his earlier order dated 30- 09-2024 thereby restoring possession in favour of the Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that since the order dated 30.9.2024 was obtained by the petitioner in his favour suppressing the material fact fraudulently, hence, there was no bar to recalling the said order. 11. I have heard the contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care. 12. In a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in which order dated 14.9.2020 (Annexure P11) was passed, possession of the petitioner was found over the disputed land. The possession of the petitioner was con/rmed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhawani, District Durg on 6.11.2020, as mentioned in Annexure P11. In the revision (Criminal Revision No.115 of 2020) /led by respondent No.1 against the order dated 6.11.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhawani, the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, vide order dated 8.3.2021, remitted back the matter over the issue of jurisdiction and directed to decide the matter afresh (Annexure P12). Vide order dated 4.7.2022 (Annexure P13), the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhawani directed the petitioner not to interfere with the possession of respondent No.1 unless any adverse order was 21 passed against respondent No.1. On the basis of that order, respondent No.1 took the possession from the petitioner. 13. The revision (Criminal Revision No.134 of 2022) /led by the petitioner was allowed on 10.2.2023 and the order dated 4.7.2022 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (Annexure P14). However, the possession of the petitioner was not restored by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate even after the aforesaid order dated 10.2.2023 and the matter was adjudicated before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. As per Annexure P10, the civil suit /led by respondent No.1 for declaration and permanent injunction was /nally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP of respondent No.1 in SLP (Civil) Diary No.24525 of 2024 was dismissed. 15. After the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the pending application of the petitioner to restore the possession was /nally decided by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhawani on 30.9.2024 (Annexure P19). On 18.10.2024, the possession was /nally provided to the petitioner after the aforesaid order dated 30.9.2024 (Annexure P19). 16. Respondent No.1 again /led an application before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for grant of possession in his favour, which was registered as Revenue Case No.884/2024 and the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed order dated 22 21.11.2024 to grant possession in favour of respondent No.1 as per Annexure P1. On 22.11.2024 (Annexure P2), the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate issued a memo to respondents No.4 and 5 to conduct inquiry and take necessary action in compliance with the order dated 21.11.2024. As per Annexure P3 dated 22.11.2024, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate issued amended memo directing respondents No.4 and 5 to produce compliance report. As per Annexure P4 dated 2.12.2024, possession warrant was issued in favour of respondent No.1 and on 2.12.2024 (Annexure P29) possession was taken from the petitioner and given to respondent No.1. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that in the civil suit (Civil Suit No.80A of 2016) /led by respondent No.1 seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Court vide judgment dated 17.9.2019 (Annexure P8), in paragraph 21 of the judgment, the learned Civil Court speci/cally held that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. For ready reference, said paragraph 21 of the judgment is reproduced below: “21. From the above /ndings, plaintiC has not proved his possession over disputed property and also right to get the sale deed executed in his favour in accordance with agreement of family partition Ex.P-12. Consequently the possession and entitlement have not been proved. There are no cogent grounds to issue permanent injunction in favour of plaintiC 23 against defendants.” 18. On 6.11.2020, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhawani has again con/rmed the possession of the petitioner over the disputed property. It is a settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, (1985) 1 SCC 427 that once civil litigation regarding possession is pending or has been adjudicated, parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. It is a well settled law that executive authorities, by their orders, cannot over-ride judicial pronouncements. In the instant case, the civil proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 have already been dismissed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, being an executive authority, had no jurisdiction to nullify or dilute the eCect of such judicial adjudication. 19. In terms of the well recognised maxim “Possession follows Title”, the lawful title-holder is presumed to be in possession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and others, (2020) 19 SCC 57 has categorically held that where issues of title and possession are intertwined, the person having better title is deemed to be in lawful possession. Since the petitioner derives valid title under the registered lease deed dated 5.3.2004, his possession is protected in law, and any contrary executive order is unsustainable. 24 20. Therefore, the instant writ petition is allowed. The memo No.1358/Pr.SDM/2024 dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P2) issued by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the amended memo No.1360/Pr.SDM/2024 dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P3) issued by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate are hereby set aside and the possession warrant dated 2.12.2024 (Annexure P4) is also set aside. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal