Section 145 CrPC | Possession Dispute Must Be Decided Based on Statements, Evidence, and Hearings, Not Ownership Documents: Meghalaya HC
The Meghalaya High Court observed that, under Section 145 CrPC, possession dispute has to be decided on the basis of statements, evidence and hearing and not on the documentary proof of ownership.
The Court held thus while noting that if there is no direct evidence of any likelihood of breach of peace, the inability of the Magistrate concerned to come to a finding as to which party is in possession of the disputed land, cannot be the sole ground for passing of order of attachment.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order passed u/s 145 Cr.PC by which the disputed land was ordered to be attached u/s 146 (1) Cr.PC.
The bench of Justice B. Bhattacharjee observed, “It is thus clear that in a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.PC the dispute with regard to possession has to be decided on the basis of the statements put in, evidence recorded and hearing the parties and not basing on any documentary proof of ownership.”
Senior Advocate A.S. Siddiqui appeared for the Appellant and Advocate P.R. Paske appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The respondent Talika T. Sangma filed an FIR alleging that the petitioner Minondro Arengh was attempting to forcibly occupy her land. After investigation, the police forwarded a report to the Executive Magistrate, who initiated a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC. Following the initiation and submission of written statements by both parties, the Executive Magistrate, ordered the attachment of the disputed land under Section 146(1) Cr.PC and prohibited economic activities on the land until the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council completed the process and demarcation.
The Court observed, “Section 145 (4) Cr.PC mandates that the question of possession has to be decided without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute.”
While noting that there must be the existence of a situation as contemplated under Section 145(1) Cr.PC before any valid order of attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.PC can be made the Court observed, “It follows that there must be the existence of situation over possession of disputed land which may cause breach of peace between the parties prior to any order of attachment of disputed property is made.”
The Court noted that the Executive Magistrate in the impugned order has recorded his inability to come to a conclusion as to which party is in actual possession, according to the Court the order is silent as to the question of the likelihood of breach of peace.
The Court further noted that there is no finding that the continuation of the existing situation between the parties would result in the creation of a breach of peace between the parties.
Accordingly, the Court set aside and quashed the impugned order under Section 145 CrPC.
Finally, the Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition.
Cause Title: Minondro Arengh v. Talika T. Sangma (Neutral Citation: 2024:MLHC:571)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Adv. A.S. Siddiqui and Adv. D. Hynniewta
Respondent: Adv. P.R. Paske