Court dismisses petition challenging the appointment of a receiver for disputed land, emphasizing limited scope of interference under Section 528 of BNSS.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Rampal and others seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, which upheld the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's decision to appoint a receiver for disputed land in Village Gohana, Kaithal. The petitioners, claiming rights based on a 99-year lease deed, sought the court's intervention under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), alleging procedural impropriety and jurisdictional errors in the lower court's orders.
The land dispute revolves around approximately 514 Kanal 6 Marla of land, with the petitioners asserting possession based on a registered lease deed from 1970. Despite their claims supported by certain revenue entries, the petitioners faced a setback when civil proceedings and subsequent appeals were adjudicated against them. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in 2018, appointed a receiver to manage the property, a decision upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in 2024.
Justice Sumeet Goel, presiding over the case, highlighted the limited scope for interference under Section 528 of BNSS, noting that such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The court observed that the petition essentially sought a re-evaluation of the merits of the dispute, which is not permissible under the restricted purview of inherent jurisdiction, especially when the Sessions Court has already examined the case in its revisional capacity.
The court further noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any glaring errors or jurisdictional defects in the orders of the lower courts. Emphasizing the distinction between challenges against original proceedings and those against revisional orders, Justice Goel underscored the heightened burden on petitioners in such cases to prove an egregious failure of justice.
In dismissing the petition, the court clarified that its observations should not impact any ongoing or future substantive rights litigations before competent civil, revenue, or appellate forums. The judgment reinforces the judicial restraint exercised by higher courts in revisiting decisions already subjected to revisional scrutiny, particularly in complex disputes involving factual determinations like possession and title.
Bottom Line :
Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS cannot be invoked as a disguised second revision against an order passed by the Sessions Court in revisional jurisdiction, particularly where the dispute involves contested questions of possession, title, lease and revenue entries and parallel civil proceedings have already been adjudicated.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 145, 146
Rampal v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989384
