Madras High Court
R.Murugesan vs Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum on 29 September, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 29.09.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017
R.Murugesan, .... Petitioner
-vs-
1. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-
Sub-Division Judicial Magistrate,
Mayiladuthurai,
O/o.The Revenue Division Office,
Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kuttalam Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk.
3. The Tahsildar,
Mayiladuthurai.
4. Venkateswaran ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.,
to set aside the exparte interim order dated 17.07.2017 passed in M.C.No.23 of
2017/A1 against the petitioner contrary to the decision of the Civil Court between
the parties and during the pendency of the Civil Suit, the 1st respondent has no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017
right or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and the
same is liable to be set aside in the Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Balasubramanian
For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
For R4 : Mr.Venkateswaran
Party-in-Person
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 407 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the interim prohibitory order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, by invoking Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Reading of the impugned order of Revenue Divisional Officer indicates that a petition was given by Thiru.Venkateswaran regarding the land in R.S.Nos.419/1A and 419/1B of Pandur Village, Mayiladuthurai alleging the patta of the property stands in the name of Thiru.Sundarambal and Smt.Jayalakshmi. The land is in possession of one Mr.T.R.Murugesan. In spite of request, he is not paying the lease. Considering the said petition and the complaint pending in Kuttalam Police Station, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017 Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai has passed prohibitory order restraining both the parties from entering the disputed land.
2. It is contended that already Civil Court has seized of the matter in the suit in O.S.No.138 of 2017 filed by the petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from forcible eviction without following the due process of law and same is pending. When Civil suit is pending regarding the possession of the property, the Revenue Divisional Officer in spite of knowledge of pendency of the suit has passed the prohibitory order contrary to the spirit of Section 145 of Cr.P.C and the judgments of this Court which has reprimanded exercise of power under Section 145 of Cr.P.C when the dispute regarding title and possession is pending before by the Competent Civil Court.
3. The 4th respondent appeared as party-in-person and submitted that the property in dispute owned by his maternal grandfather. The petitioner, who entered into the property on lease after the demise of his grand father taking advantage of the fact that his mother and aunt are absentees land lord, trying to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017 take away the property. Hence, the suit in O.S.No.40 of 2012 was initiated against the petitioner herein seeking possession of the property. However, the trial Court, after framing two issues, dismissed the suit with a direction that till the status of the defendant i.e., petitioner herein is determined by Competent Authority, the relief for possession or arrears of rent cannot be sought. He submitted that, he has not preferred any appeal but on consultation with legal experts, he was advised to given application to the Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai to determine whether T.R.Murugesan, the petitioner herein is entitled for the status of cultivating tenant or his status cannot be conclusively determined.
4. The above request of Venkateswaran dated 07.06.2017 and subsequent complaint to the Police appears to have been trigger the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, to pass order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., which is impugned in this Criminal Revision case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017
5. On considering the records and the submissions, this Court finds that while suit for permanent injunction pending, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, has passed prohibitory order restraining the petitioner herein from entering the disputed land. While the admitted fact as stated by the 4 th respondent/Venkateswaran, that the land is in possession of the petitioner herein. Therefore, a prohibitory order per se unsustainable more so, when civil Court has seized of the matter.
6. In the light of the above fact, the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, dated 17.07.2017 is hereby quashed. The 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai, is directed to consider the representation dated 07.06.2017 given by the 4th respondent/Venkateswaran for determination of the status of the petitioner herein and pass appropriate order after due notice to all parties concern, preferably within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.
29.09.2022
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
bsm
To,
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-
Sub-Division Judicial Magistrate,
Mayiladuthurai,
O/o.The Revenue Division Office,
Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kuttalam Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk.
3. The Tahsildar,
Mayiladuthurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J
bsm
Crl.R.C.No.1044 of 2017
29.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis