1977 (12) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leging that there is a Hotel known, as 'Suresh Maharashtra Tea & Cold Drinks & Eating House' on the disputed land which was owned by and in occupation of the respondent. The appellants forcibly dispossessed him from the Hotel on the 5th July 1975. The application under Section 145 was filed initially against appellants 1 and 2. But at the instance of appellant number 3 he was also subsequently joined as a party, to the proceeding. 2. The Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code on the 29th July, 1975 asking the parties to appear before him and put in their written statements. On the same date, however, he attached the disputed property under Section 146(1) of the Code. The appellants put in their writt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d date in any Court, it shall abate; and it shall be lawful for the Competent Authority to evict such person from unauthorised occupation of the vacant land under the provisions of this Act and to remove and forfeit any property from such land as provided in this Act. 4. The Magistrate in his order dated the 21st January 1977 passed in the proceeding aforementioned took the view that in view of Section 8 of the Act, he ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the case, in as much as he will have to order eviction of the appellants from the disputed property if the case of the respondent was found to be true. The appellant filed a revision in the Bombay High Court from the said order of the Magistrate but failed. The High Court agreed wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibly and wrongfully dispossessed within" two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under Sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under Sub-section (1). Sub-section 6(a) treats the party dispossessed within the period provided for in the proviso to Sub-section (4) as being in possession of the disputed land on the date of the order made under Sub-section (1). Restoration of possession to the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed attracting the proviso to Sub-section (4) is, in substance and in effect, putting back the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before him he would do so. In that even the other party will be forbidden from creating any disturbance of the possession [including the deemed possession, in case the application of the proviso to Sub-section (4) is found necessary] of the party declared in possession. The Magistrate, then, will have to withdraw the attachment in accordance with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 146, because, as per his order declaring a party in possession there would be no longer any likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. The party not found in possession by the Magistrate will have to seek the redress of his grievance, if any, elsewhere. If, however, the Magistrate decides that none of the parties was in pos....