[2026:RJ-JP:32468] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1505/2010 CNR: RJHC020199782010 | URN: CRLMP / 2615U / 2010 1. Girraj s/o Shri Keshri Lal Mahajan 2. Dhanna Ramj son of Devnarayan Brahman 3. Shri Narayan son of Harphool Meena 4. Ramlal son of Ram Sahai Meena 5. Ramhet son of Chandar Meena 6. Mandya son of Ladya Meena 7. Jaldhari son of Ghudiya Meena 8.. Rambharoishi son of Kishoriya Meena 9. Champa Ram son of Ghamandi Meena 10 Chotya son of Govardhan Meena 11. Jagan son of Gangadhar Meena 12. Mandu son of Chajya 13. Babu Lal son of Ghamandi Meena 14. Munnu son of Jagan Meena 15. Sulji son of Gangadhar Meena 16. Harkesh son of Ranglya Meena 17. Ramjilal son of Hatilya Meena 18. Brijlal son of Jainya Meena 19. Shambhu son of Isharya Khatik 20. Ramsaran son of Basanta Meena 21. Kailashi wife of Kailash Meena 22. Ramesh son of Pundha Meena (All resident of Amawara, Dist. Sawaimadhipur (Raj.)) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through PP 2. SDM, Bamanwas, Dist. Sawaimadhopur 3. Jagan son of Mundya 4. Looter son of Chittar (since deceased-name deleted vide order dated 17.08.2026) 5. Laxman son of Jutya (Respondent No.3 to 5 resident of Amawara, Dist. Sawaimadhipur (Raj.)) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Senior Advocate with Ms. Muskan Verma, Mr. Umang Jain, [2026:RJ-JP:32468] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1505/2010] Ms. Palak Sinha, Ms. Soniya Mangal Ms. Pratibha Singh Ranawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/08/2026 1. None petitioner No.2 has already been served. 2. Respondent No.4 has expired and the fact is taken on record. The name of respondent No.4 is deleted from array of respondents. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners while referring judgment dated 25.07.2019 in civil suit No.18/1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, Sawaimadhopur has submitted that matter arising out of a land dispute wherein a civil suit filed by opposite party has been dismissed and the land rights are decided in favour of petitioners. He also submitted that now much water has flown during pendency of this petition as petitioners are in possession of land in question, though an order was passed by then SDM for possession of land. 4. Learned Senior Advocate has further referred order dated 22.07.2004 in misc. petition Nos.738/2001 and 1170/2001 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that an order has been passed in favour of the petitioners, wherein a specific observation has been made by rights of non-petitioners. [2026:RJ-JP:32468] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1505/2010] 5. For ready reference, we are reproducing the order dated 27.02.2004 as under: "Since on same set of facts similar prayers have been made in both the petitions on request of counsel for the parties, both the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the orders passed by the courts below. At the very onset it may be observed that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are only prohibitory and precautionary to maintain peace, law and order in the area and on the lands in dispute. It is subjective discretion of the authorities concerned to pass necessary orders. The authorities are not required to finally determine the rights of parties in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. If any party claims any legal right on a particular land for whatever reasons, they should first get it decided by a competent court and execute the order/decree, if any, in accordance with law. Since after due consideration of material available on record proper discretion have been used by the revisional court in a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in the facts and circumstances, I find no ground for any further interference of this court in the present matter, moreso, [2026:RJ-JP:32468] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1505/2010] when there are rival claims on the lands in dispute. If the petitioners are still aggrieved and claim the ownership/ possession over the lands in dispute on the ground of of adverse possession or a decree by a competent court, they may get necessary, orders from the competent courts in this regard accordingly. In the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot give any finding in regard to possession over the lands in dispute at this stage. Both the petitions are dismissed accordingly as having no merits." 6. Learned Senior Advocate has referred Annexure-4 and submitted that Tehsildar, Bamanwas has handed over possession to the petitioners on 06.12.2005 and since then they are maintaining the possession. The grievance of the petitioners is that contrary to the order passed by this Court as mentioned herein and the order of possession, the SDM has directed handing over of possession to other party on 16.04.2008 which was challenged before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City (Sawaimadhopur) but criminal revision was dismissed on 12.03.2010. He submits that after dismissal of civil suit, theses order are liable to be quashed and petitioners are entitled to enjoy possession of the property. 7. None present on behalf of non-petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in allowing misc. petition, in case civil suit has been dismissed and the order has been passed in favour of the petitioners. [2026:RJ-JP:32468] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1505/2010] 8. Having considered the submissions and material placed om record and after taking note of the fact that civil suit No.18/1999 filed by Laxman and Ors. has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City on 25.07.2019 and further a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the rival claims under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has observed that in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the Court cannot give any finding with regard to possession of land in question. The Bench has observed that if the petitioners are aggrieved and claim ownership/possession over the land in question on the ground of adverse possession or a decree by a competent court, then they may get necessary orders from the competent court. Annexure-4 dated 06.12.2005 indicate compliance of the order, thus misc. petition is liable to be allowed. 9. In view of aforesaid, order dated 16.04.2008 in case No.08/2004 passed by SDM, Bamanwas Dist. Sawaimadhopur and order dated 12.03.2010 in criminal revision No.46/2008 are hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, misc. petition along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 10/PREETI VALECHA