ORDER
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. Perused the certified copy of the order of revisional Court as well as the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam (which has been produced by Shri Apate).
2. The order of S.D.M. shows that late Maharaja Lokendra Singh expired in 1991 leaving behind his widow late Maharani Prabharajay Laxmi. Both died issue-less and there was a dispute about the assertion of claim by their relatives who were claiming to be their successors. It appears from the order that on 20-6-93 there was dispute between concerned parties in respect of ownership and possession of the property of late Maharaj Lokendrasingh and an entry was made in that context in Estagasa Register bearing Entry No. 1 of 20-6-93. It resulted in T.I., Ratlam preferring an application to S.D.M., Ratlam and in view of that S.D.M., Ratlam issued notice to the concerned parties in view of provisions of Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for short).
3. On 27-6-95 also there was some dispute of which entry was made in the said police station. In view of that Tahsildar, Ratlam, Manager of Court of Wards and T.I. of Do Batti, P.S., Ratlam were appointed as Receivers of the said property.
4. On 21 -11 -95, Smt. Mahendra Kumari w/o Yuvraj Pratap Singh Maharaja, Alwar, Rajasthan and Shri Jitendra Singh s/o Pratapsing r/o Alwar, Rajasthan filed a compromise deed with their signatures as well as signature of their counsel. On 29-11-95 Smt. Mahendra Kumari informed the Court on behalf of her mother that there was no dispute between them in respect of the said property. They also informed by said compromise that the civil litigation which was being tried in the Indore Courts was also amicably settled.
5. Learned S.D.M. thereafter passed the orders directing that the possession of the some property be handed over to some of the relatives of the deceased late Lokendra Singh and that order was challenged by the State by filing a revision petition in the Sessions Court. Sessions Court, Ratlam held that learned S.D.M. had no jurisdiction to allocate the shares of the said property to various persons and, therefore, the order of S.D.M. was bad in law. Revisional Court allowed the said revision petition and set aside the order of S.D.M. That order has been assailed by the present petitioner Kishore Mehta.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
7. Section 145(1) of the Code empowers the Executive Magistrate, if he happens to be satisfied from a report of police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their ‘respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Sub-section (2) provides the way in which the parties are to be served notice of the said order. Sub-section (4) provides that “The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to prossess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidences as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under Sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute.” Sub-section (5) provides that “Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistarte shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under Sub-section (1) shall be final.”
8. In the present case the parties have Submitted in writing that a dispute which was in existence between them before passing the said order, has been amicably settled. Learned S.D.M. was within his jurisdiction to pass the order for dropping said proceedings. In fact when we are following the path of Lok Adalat for the purpose of encouraging the litigants to settle their disputes amicably, such compromise which was submitted before S.D.M. should have been treated properly. It is for the learned S.D.M. to get satisfied whether said dispute in respect of the property existed or not ? It was for him to get satisfied whether such dispute was likely to cause breach of peace, whether the parties who were interested in asserting their claim in respect of the ownership of the said property and its possession, had, by compromise, amicably settled their disputes.- The learned S.D.M. is well within his jurisdiction and power in dropping the said proceeding. What error the learned Magistrate has committed, is that he has allocated various properties to various persons. That should have been left to the Civil Courts. Learned counsel appearing for the concerned parties had submitted that the disputes of the concerned parties lingering in Civil Courts have been also settled. When that is so, nothing remains for the learned S.D.M. to proceed against said parties in view of provisions of Section 145 of the Code. When there is no dispute in existence in respect of said property, there is no point in asking T.I. of Do Batti, P.S., Ratlam and Tahsildar, Ratlam to be in possession of said property as Receivers; because when the dispute did not exist, when the proceeding did not exist, there is no point for them in remaining Receivers of those properties. If the parties drag themselves in dispute and if there is likelihood of breach of peace, the learned S.D.M. is empowered to take a fresh action in that context in view of provisions of Section 145 of the Code or Section 107 of the Code.
9. Learned revisional Court should have considered the matter in this aspect and should have set aside that portion of the order of S.D.M. which was concerned with allocation of different property to different persons. So far as the order passed by S.D.M., Ratlam dropping the said proceeding is concerned, it suffers no impropriety, incorrectness and illegality. Thus, the said proceeding stands dropped. The Receivers to hand over the possession to the parties who are entitled to receive it in view of the said compromise.
10. If the need arises the parties are entitled to approach the Court for their claims and assertions of rights. There remains nothing for State Govt. to challenge the amicable settlement arrived at by the parties by themselves, if there is no danger to the public tranquillity. The State Govt. has right to claim the tax and dues from the respective owners of the properties. C.C. on payment.