High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. ( now section 438 BNSS) the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.1.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh, Barabanki in case No.04237 of 2018 under Sections 145/146 of Cr.P.C.

3. The dispute in the present case pertains to Kut Khiladidas Vidyapeeth Haswapur Majre Khairakanku Khiladi Sahab Smarak Samiti situated at village Hanswapur, Hamlet of Khaira Kankoo, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki. The dispute in the present case has commenced after Mahant Achintdas who died on 3.12.2013 and the issue for successor-ship is underway between Mahant Bhagoledas and Mahant Harilaldas and proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. was initiated before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Haidergarh, Ayodhya (now in Barabanki) claiming himself to be the successor of Mahant Achintdas while on the other hand opposite party no.2 had claimed that Mahant Achintdas in his lifetime had appointed him as a successor. In the said dispute a police report was also called for which was submitted on 11.2.2018 in which it was stated that Mahant Harilaldas is in possession and running the trust as a successor of Mahant Achintdas. It was further stated on behalf of opposite party No.2 that Mohizznama was executed in favour of respondent No.2 on 30.6.2014 in open meeting where Mahant Harilaldas was appointed as successor of Mahant Achintdas.

4. By means of order dated 15.10.2019 the Sub Divisional Magistrate rejected the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. preferred by the revisionist holding that the opposite party No.2 was in possession of the said property and accordingly no interference is required in the same order dated 15.10.2019. On a revision being preferred before Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki who by means of order dated 5.2.2024 allowed the said revision and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration before the Sub divisional Magistrate.

5. It is in the remand proceedings that the impugned order dated 16.1.2025 has been passed again considering the entire conspectus of the matter in great detail and has concluded that Mahant Harilaldas was, in fact, successor of Mahant Achintdas and opposite party No.2 was the chela of Mahant Harilaldas who consequently is in possession and in any case it is open for the parties to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order has been passed in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and has again reiterated the ground raised before the Sub Divisional magistrate. He submits that in fact a Mohajjinama was executed in favour of the revisionist sometime in the year 2000 and since then he is in possession of the said trust as well as school. He submits that it is duty of the opposite party to prove that they are in possession and no document has been filed by the opposite parties and consequently the claim of the revisionist deserves to be allowed.

7. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the petition. He submits that the entire conspectus of the matter was duly considered by Sub divisional Magistrate and even police report in this regard was duly considered where it was categorically stated that it is opposite party No.2 who is in possession of the said property while deciding the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. only the aspect of possession has to be looked into and it is not the case where rights of the parties are adjudicated and accordingly there is no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.

9. The claim of the revisionist was opposed by the opposite parties before Sub Divisional Magistrate. The material in favour of opposite party No.2 was in the form of police report which was submitted on 11.2.2018 stating that Mahant Achintdas was succeeded by Mahant Harilaldas and Mohizznama was executed in his favour on 30.6.2014. It was further submitted that the school which is also running and its papers were duly mutated in favour of the opposite party. Even the society which was being looked after by the Mahant of the trust was duly succeeded in favour of Mahant Harilaldas after death of Mahant Achintdas apart from the fact that all the facts pointed towards possession Mahant Harilaldas and after his death by opposite party No.2 who has clearly recorded that the revisionist could not adduce any evidence to prove that he is in possession of the disputed party.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the ambit of Section 145 CrPC in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 3 SCC 366 : “6. The object of Section 145 CrPC is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, and not for evicting any person from possession. The scope of enquiry under Section 145 is in respect of actual possession without reference to the merits or claim of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute.” 11. Even before this Court, except adducing the Mohizznama in 2000, no other document has been annexed even the police report states that the revisionist and his associates earlier tried to capture the said property and accordingly considering the entire material we find that the dispute of possession has been dealt with in great detail and the claim of opposite party has been found to be correct that he is in possession of the disputed property.

12. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference. The revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. ( now section 438 BNSS) the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.1.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh, Barabanki in case No.04237 of 2018 under Sections 145/146 of Cr.P.C.

3. The dispute in the present case pertains to Kut Khiladidas Vidyapeeth Haswapur Majre Khairakanku Khiladi Sahab Smarak Samiti situated at village Hanswapur, Hamlet of Khaira Kankoo, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki. The dispute in the present case has commenced after Mahant Achintdas who died on 3.12.2013 and the issue for successor-ship is underway between Mahant Bhagoledas and Mahant Harilaldas and proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. was initiated before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Haidergarh, Ayodhya (now in Barabanki) claiming himself to be the successor of Mahant Achintdas while on the other hand opposite party no.2 had claimed that Mahant Achintdas in his lifetime had appointed him as a successor. In the said dispute a police report was also called for which was submitted on 11.2.2018 in which it was stated that Mahant Harilaldas is in possession and running the trust as a successor of Mahant Achintdas. It was further stated on behalf of opposite party No.2 that Mohizznama was executed in favour of respondent No.2 on 30.6.2014 in open meeting where Mahant Harilaldas was appointed as successor of Mahant Achintdas.

4. By means of order dated 15.10.2019 the Sub Divisional Magistrate rejected the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. preferred by the revisionist holding that the opposite party No.2 was in possession of the said property and accordingly no interference is required in the same order dated 15.10.2019. On a revision being preferred before Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki who by means of order dated 5.2.2024 allowed the said revision and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration before the Sub divisional Magistrate.

5. It is in the remand proceedings that the impugned order dated 16.1.2025 has been passed again considering the entire conspectus of the matter in great detail and has concluded that Mahant Harilaldas was, in fact, successor of Mahant Achintdas and opposite party No.2 was the chela of Mahant Harilaldas who consequently is in possession and in any case it is open for the parties to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order has been passed in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and has again reiterated the ground raised before the Sub Divisional magistrate. He submits that in fact a Mohajjinama was executed in favour of the revisionist sometime in the year 2000 and since then he is in possession of the said trust as well as school. He submits that it is duty of the opposite party to prove that they are in possession and no document has been filed by the opposite parties and consequently the claim of the revisionist deserves to be allowed.

7. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the petition. He submits that the entire conspectus of the matter was duly considered by Sub divisional Magistrate and even police report in this regard was duly considered where it was categorically stated that it is opposite party No.2 who is in possession of the said property while deciding the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. only the aspect of possession has to be looked into and it is not the case where rights of the parties are adjudicated and accordingly there is no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.

9. The claim of the revisionist was opposed by the opposite parties before Sub Divisional Magistrate. The material in favour of opposite party No.2 was in the form of police report which was submitted on 11.2.2018 stating that Mahant Achintdas was succeeded by Mahant Harilaldas and Mohizznama was executed in his favour on 30.6.2014. It was further submitted that the school which is also running and its papers were duly mutated in favour of the opposite party. Even the society which was being looked after by the Mahant of the trust was duly succeeded in favour of Mahant Harilaldas after death of Mahant Achintdas apart from the fact that all the facts pointed towards possession Mahant Harilaldas and after his death by opposite party No.2 who has clearly recorded that the revisionist could not adduce any evidence to prove that he is in possession of the disputed party.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the ambit of Section 145 CrPC in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 3 SCC 366 : “6. The object of Section 145 CrPC is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, and not for evicting any person from possession. The scope of enquiry under Section 145 is in respect of actual possession without reference to the merits or claim of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute.” 11. Even before this Court, except adducing the Mohizznama in 2000, no other document has been annexed even the police report states that the revisionist and his associates earlier tried to capture the said property and accordingly considering the entire material we find that the dispute of possession has been dealt with in great detail and the claim of opposite party has been found to be correct that he is in possession of the disputed property.

12. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference. The revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench