Demolition of disputed property

2013 SCMR 357 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 145Dispute concerning land likely to cause breach of peaceDemolition of disputed propertyNew construction raised over such property with ulterior motivesEffectRestoration of possession of property to complainantPowers of Magistrate under S.145, Cr.P.C.Scope

Complainant (respondent) filed a complaint under S.145, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate contending that he was owner of disputed property and had put a tenant therein, who was forcibly evicted by the accused persons (petitioners)

Magistrate called report from police in terms of S.145, Cr.P.C., but no report was submitted by the police

High Court directed Magistrate to consider complaint of complainant and also directed both parties to appear before the Magistrate

Magistrate on receipt of police report, considered that there was imminent danger of breach of peace and accordingly passed order for attachment of property, without determining issue of possession

First Appellate Court directed the Station House Officer (SHO) to put complainant in possession of disputed property

Appeal filed against order of First Appellate Court was dismissed by High Court

Validity

Station House Officer had deposed that he conducted inquiry and confirmed that premises in dispute was initially in the possession of complainant and after his dispossession by the accused persons, the premises was demolished and shops were constructed thereon, and that there was a strong apprehension of breach of peace over the disputed premises

Station House Officer stated in his cross-examination that shops constructed on the demolished premises were ordered to be attached by the Magistrate

First Appellate Court and High Court had rightly ordered restoration of possession of disputed property to complainant in view of the evidence of Station House Officer (SHO) and complainant

Accused persons demolished subject property after dispossession of complainant and raised new construction on it with ulterior motives

Magistrate did not decide the issue of possession of disputed property despite availability of sufficient evidence on record

Orders of First Appellate Court and High Court were in conformity with provisions of S.145, Cr.P.C.

Petition for leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.