Madras High Court
Revathy vs State Rep. By on 28 August, 2020
Author: R.Pongiappan
Bench: R.Pongiappan
CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 26.08.2020
Delivered on : 24.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 and 8123 of 2020
and
W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
and
WM.P.(MD)Nos.7730 and 7731 of 2020
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8646 of 2020:-
Revathy, W/o.Piramayan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Athiramapattinam Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
2.M.S.Saipudeen ... Respondents
[R2 name is amended, vide Memo dated 28.08.2020]
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the first respondent not to interfere with the
petitioner's civil dispute in respect of the lands in S.Nos.348/1, 348/2, 347/1, 354/2,
354/3, 355/8A and 355/8D, situated at Thambaramkottai North Revenue Village,
Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu
For R1 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/28
CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
For R2 : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.G.Abraham Prabhu
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8123 of 2020:-
1.Tajudeen, S/o.Shamsudeen
2.Saifudeen, S/o.Shamsudeen
3.Nizamudeen, S/o.Shamsudeen ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Adiramapattinam G-3 Police Station,
Adiramapattinam,
Pattukkottai – 614 701,
Thanjavur District.
2.Revathy, W/o.Piramayan
3.Karnan, S/o.Arumugam
4.Subramanian, S/o.Singaravelu ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the first respondent Police to provide adequate
police protection to the petitioners for erecting and construing a fence in/around their
lands bearing Survey Nos.337/1, 344/1A, 345/1, 345/1B, 347/1, 348/1 and 348/2,
situated at Rasiyangadu Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
For Petitioners : Mr.Veerakathiravn
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Abraham Prabhu
For R1 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.M.Ramu
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/28
CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020:-
Revathy, W/o.Piramayan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Divisional Executive Magistrate/
Sub-Collector,
Pattukkottai,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Pattukkottai,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Athiramapattinam Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4.M.S.Saipudeen ... Respondents
[R4 name is amended, vide Memo dated 28.08.2020]
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order in Na.Ka./4243/2019/A3, dated 31.01.2020, under Section
145 of Cr.P.C., passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently,
direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere in civil dispute between the petitioner
and the fourth respondent herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu
For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R4 : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.G.Abraham Prabhu
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/28
CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in all these three matters is one and the same, by consent, all the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020, has filed a Memo stating that due to typographical error, the fourth respondent's name has been wrongly mentioned in the petition as M.S.Samsudeen in stead of M.S.Saipudeen in the cause title and therefore, he prayed to accept the said Memo and rectify the fourth respondent's name as M.S.Saipudeen. The said Memo is recorded.
3.The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 viz., Revathy and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8646 of 2020 is one and the same person. Similarly, the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 viz., M.S.Saipudeen and the second respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8646 of 2020 is one and the same person. Crl.O.P. (MD)No.8123 of 2020 has been filed by the said M.S.Saipudeen and his two brothers viz., Tajudeen and Nizamudeen against the writ petitioner - Revathy, the Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam G-3 Police Station, Adiramapattinam, Pattukkottai and two other individuals viz., Karnan and Subramanian. http://www.judis.nic.in 4/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
4.The grievance of the writ petitioner/petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8646 of 2020 is that, the land in S.Nos.348/1 measuring an extent of 52 Ares, 348/2 measuring an extent of 60 Ares, 347/1 measuring an extent of 2.14.50 Hectares, 354/2 measuring an extent of 1.50 Ares, 354/3 measuring an extent of 76.50 Ares, 355/8A measuring an extent of 75.50 Ares and 355/8D measuring an extent of 4 Ares, totalling 4 Hectares and 84 Ares, situated at Thambaramkottai North Revenue Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District, are under her possession and enjoyment.
5.The writ petitioner's grandfather viz., Aran.Ambalam orally purchased the above said lands from one Hanifa Marakaiyar before 70 years back and the said Hanifa Marakaiyar, who was a very busy businessman and was not able to execute the sale deed, despite that the writ petitioner's grandfather paid the entire sale consideration amount. The writ petitioner is enjoying the said lands as a 3 rd generation, without any disturbance from others. The legal heirs of the said Hanifa Marakaiyar are aware of the writ petitioner's enjoyment even till now.
6.The writ petitioner's father viz., Thangavel got house assignment Patta in respect of S.No.347/2. The other lands, which are now under dispute, are surrounding the said survey number. The grandfather of the writ petitioner planted coconut trees in the above said lands and the writ petitioner is harvesting the same. http://www.judis.nic.in 5/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 Likewise, others persons belonging to the writ petitioner's Village also similar nature of enjoyment as that of the writ petitioner herein.
7.Though the father of the writ petitioner has taken steps to execute the sale deed, the legal heirs of the said Hanifa Marakaiyar are not ready to register the sale deed, because they are busy businessmen. However, the writ petitioner and her family members are enjoying the above-referred lands for the past 70 years. While so, some of the land brokers with rowdy elements interfered with the writ petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment stating that the revenue records stand in the name of the fourth respondent – M.S.Saipudeen. Thereafter, on verification, the writ petitioner came to know that the revenue records stand in the name of some other persons. Therefore, immediately, the writ petitioner along with other persons, those who are all having the similar nature of enjoyment, approached the legal heirs of the said Hanifa Marakaiyar and demanded to execute the sale deed, but they are not ready to execute the same, since the said lands were developed for better condition by using the writ petitioner's manpower.
8.The fourth respondent in the Writ Petition along with hooligans and Police Officers entered into the said lands and threatened her and others to vacate from the said lands. Immediately, some of the persons preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District, who is http://www.judis.nic.in 6/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 arrayed as third respondent in the Writ Petition. On receipt of the same, the third respondent Police acted in a biased manner and directed the writ petitioner and others to vacate from the said lands. In this regard, the writ petitioner and others were directed by the third respondent Police to appear before him on 31.01.2020, where they obtained the signature of the writ petitioner and others in blank papers in the presence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District, who is arrayed as first respondent in the Writ Petition.
9.Thereafter, the writ petitioner came to know that in the impugned order, which has been passed by the first respondent, vide Na.Ka.No.4243/2019/A3, dated 31.01.2020, under Section 145 Cr.P.C., based upon the report given by the third respondent in Crime No.227 of 2019, dated 04.10.2019, the writ petitioner's father and others are shown as ''B'' Party and the fourth respondent - M.S.Saipudeen and others are shown as ''A'' Party. The said order is very unfortunate and injustice to the writ petitioner and others.
10.After knowing the same, the writ petitioner sent a legal notice to the legal heirs of the said Hanifa Marakaiyar, including the fourth respondent – M.S.Saipudeen and the same was received by them and replied by stating flimsy reasons. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed Caveat Petition before the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai. However, by virtue of the impugned order passed by the http://www.judis.nic.in 7/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 first respondent, the fourth respondent – M.S.Saipudeen along with the third respondent Police and rowdy elements, came to the disputed lands and cut the teakwood and coconut trees, by using JCB vehicle.
11.In respect of the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the case of the writ petitioner is that without following due process of law and beyond his jurisdiction, the first respondent / Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, passed the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent / Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, is liable to be set aside. Further, it is necessary to direct the first respondent / Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, not to interfere with the writ petitioner's civil dispute in respect of the lands bearing S.Nos.348/1, 348/2, 347/1, 354/2, 354/3, 355/8A and 355/8D, situated at Thambaramkottai North Revenue Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
12.The case of the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8123 of 2020 is that they are brothers, and joint and absolute owners of the Punja lands, situated at Rasiyangadu Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District, comprised in S.Nos.337/1, 344/1A, 345/1, 345/1B, 347/1, 348/1 and 348/2 and Pattas and Chittas in respect of the said lands stand in their respective names. The said Punja lands were originally belonged to their forefathers, wherein they had been in absolute possession and ownership and subsequently, they obtained ownership vide succession. As such, the petitioners' http://www.judis.nic.in 8/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 families have been enjoying the possession of larger extent of lands for many decades. While so, to cultivate crops and oversee the coconut trees in their lands, they had appointed several persons and in due course of time, they had obtained Ryotwari Pattas, for their longtime possession of the lands, comprised in S.Nos. 337/2, 337/3, 337/5, 344/2, 344/3, 345/2, 345/3, 345/5, 346/2 and 347/2. In fact, the said lands are adjacent to the lands having by the petitioners.
13.After obtaining Ryotwari Pattas, the writ petitioner and one Karnan and Subramanian, who are arrayed as respondents 3 and 4 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8123 of 2020, along with others disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners and they had created troubles often. In the meantime, due to Gaja Cyclone calamity in November 2018, the petitioners lost their entire crops, trees, further, their business will be affected substantially. While so, the counterparts had once again interrupted the petitioners from putting up fencing in their lands and as a matter of fact, prevented the licensed Surveyors from marking boundaries of their lands. Since their counterparts were not reasonable, the petitioners gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam G-3 Police Station, Adiramapattinam, Pattukkottai, on 12.09.2019, vide C.S.R.No.426 of 2019 against the individuals namely, Subramanian, Karnan, Selvam, Munusamy and few others. As a counter- blast, the said persons had also given a complaint against the petitioners before the respondent Police.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
14.After due enquiry, an F.I.R. has been registered in Crime No.227 of 2019, dated 04.10.2019, under Section 145 Cr.P.C., against both parties and the same has been forwarded to the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, to conduct an enquiry and consequentially, a notice has been issued to both parties concerned vide Pa.Va. 03/2019/A3, directing them to appear before the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, for enquiry. After receiving the notice, the petitioners and their counterparts attended the enquiry and substantiated their respective claims before the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai.
15.The Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, after inspecting the Punja lands, passed an order dated 31.01.2020, vide Na.Ka.4243/2019/A3, directing both parties shall not disturb the peaceful possession of the property, i.e., '',jpy; A jug;gpdUf;F nrhe;jkhd njd;de;Njhg;Gfs; cs;s Gyd;fspy; A jug;gpduhy; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gLk; guhkhpg;G gzpfspd; NghJk;> Njq;fha; gwpf;Fk; NghJk; B jug;gpdH vt;tpj ,ilA+Wk; Vw;gLj;jf;$lhJ.''
16.The order passed by the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, shows that the writ petitioner and others do not have any right to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Punja lands belong to the petitioners. Though the said order has been passed in their favour, the writ petitioner and others have not stopped from entering into the lands belong to the petitioners. Further, they have a legal right to fence their own property and it is illegal for anyone to prevent them from doing so. Hence, the http://www.judis.nic.in 10/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 petitioners have preferred a complaint before the respondent Police to provide police protection to them to put up fencing in and around their Punja lands. But, no action has been taken on their complaint and as a matter of fact, no C.S.R. Number has even provided for the said complaint. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the respondent Police to provide adequate Police Protection to the petitioners to put up fencing in and around their lands in S.Nos.337/1, 344/1A, 345/1, 345/1B, 347/1, 348/1 and 348/2, situated at Rasiyangadu Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
17.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8646 of 2020 has been filed by the very same writ petitioner viz., Revathy, seeking direction, to direct the Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District, not to interfere with the civil dispute in respect of the lands in S.Nos.348/1, 348/2, 347/1, 354/2, 354/3, 355/8A and 355/8D, situated at Thambaramkottai North Revenue Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
18.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
19.Before entering into the merits and demerits of the Writ Petition and the other two Criminal Original Petitions, which have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is relevant to see the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, http://www.judis.nic.in 11/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 which reads as follows:-
''jhkuq;Nfhl;il tlf;F> uhrpaq;fhL fpuhkj;jpy; ,Ujug;gpdhpilNa Vw;gl;l gpur;rpidapy; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; F.tp.K.r.145-d;gb mjpuhk;gl;bzk; fhty; Ma;thsuhy; gjpT nra;ag;gl;l Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapd;gb A kw;Wk; B ghh;l;bf;F nrhe;jkhd epyq;fs; UDR ''m'' gjpNtL> 10(1) rpl;lh kw;Wk; mlq;fy; Mfpa fpuhkf; fzf;Ffspy; fPo;fz;lthW gjpTfs; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ.
A ghHl;b t. Gy vz; tifghL gug;G UDR m gjpNtl;bd;gb 10(1) rpl;lh kw;Wk;
vz; mlq;fypd;gb
gl;lh vz; kw;Wk; gl;lh vz; kw;Wk;
gl;lhjhuH ngaH gl;lhjhuH ngaH
1 337/1 uaj;J – GQ;ir 2.55.5 1237-vk;.vk;.r.KifjPd; 1237-
vk;.vk;.r.KifjPd;
2 344/1A uaj;J – GQ;ir 1.70.5 387-vk;.v];.rkhYjPd; 1027-
vk;.v];.rkhYjPd;
3 345/1 uaj;J – GQ;ir 1.98.0 387-vk;.v];.rkhYjPd; 387-
vk;.v];.rkhYjPd;
4 345/1B uaj;J – GQ;ir 1.91.0 385-vk;.v];.rfhGjPd; 385-vk;.v];.rfhGjPd;
5 347/1 uaj;J – GQ;ir 2.14.5 386-vk;.v];.irGjPd; 386-vk;.v];.irGjPd;
6 348/1 uaj;J – GQ;ir 0.99.0 386-vk;.v];.irGjPd; 386-vk;.v];.irGjPd;
7 348/2 uaj;J – GQ;ir 0.74.0 386-vk;.v];.irGjPd; 386-vk;.v];.irGjPd;
B ghHl;b
t. Gy vz; tifghL gug;G UDR m 10(1) rpl;lh kw;Wk; mlq;fypd;gb
v gjpNtl;bd;
z; gb
Fwpg;G tifghL gl;lh vz; kw;Wk;
gl;lhjhuH ngaH
1 337/2 r.Gw 0.01.0 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 3021-M.kUjg;gps;is
2 337/3 r.Gw 0.01.5 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 2885-K.rilahz;b
3 337/5 r.Gw 0.01.0 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 3178-K.nghparhkp-1>
K.khhpKj;J-2
http://www.judis.nic.in
12/28
CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 4 344/2 r.Gw 0.02.5 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 3140-gh.Nfhtpe;juhR-1 gh.rz;Kfk;-2 5 344/3 r.Gw 0.01.0 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 2851-gh.rz;Kfk; 6 345/2 r.Gw 0.01.5 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 2877-m.rpq;fhuNtY 7 345/3 r.Gw 0.01.0 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 3069-m.uhkrhkp 8 345/5 r.Gw 0.03.0 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 2525-rp.itj;jpaypq;fk; 9 346/2 r.Gw 0.02.5 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 2794-kh.MWKf fz;baH 10 347/2 r.Gw 0.02.0 ej;jk; uaj;J kid 2916-M.jq;fNtY Nkw;fz;lthW cs;s jhth Gyq;fs; njhlHghf A kw;Wk; B jug;gpdHfis tprhuiz nra;jNghJ A jug;gpdH jq;fSf;F nrhe;jkhd epyq;fspy; f[h Gaypd;NghJ ghjpf;fg;gl;l njd;id kuq;fis mg;Gwg;gLj;jp Gjpa njd;dq;fd;Wfs; eLk; gzp kw;Wk; Ntyp mikf;Fk; gzpfspy; <Lgl;bUe;jNghJ jq;fsJ Njhg;Gfspy; jq;fpAs;s egHfs; Nkw;fz;l gzpfis nra;atplhky;
jLj;Jk;> Njhg;gpy; Njq;fha;fis gwpf;ftplhky; jLj;Jk; vq;fsJ epyq;fis mstPL nra;atplhky; jLj;Jk;> Nkw;fz;l gzpfis nra;a tUk; Ntiy Ml;fis gzp nra;atplhky; jLj;Jk; tUfpd;wdH vdTk;> Nkw;fz;l gzpfis njhlHe;J nra;aTk; vq;fsJ Njhg;gpy; Njq;fha; gwpf;fTk; Nkw;gb egHfshy; vt;tpj ,ilA+Wk; Vw;glhky; ,Uf;fTk; cj;jutpLkhWk; Nfhhp thf;F%yk; mspj;Js;sdH.
B jug;gpdH jhq;fs; fle;j Ie;J jiyKiwahf A jug;gpdUf;F nrhe;jkhd njd;de;Njhg;Gfspy; FLk;gj;Jld; trpj;JtUtjhfTk;> Nkw;gb Njhg;gpd; %yk; ehq;fs; midtUk; gadile;J mjd;%yk; tUkhdk; <l;btUtjhfTk;> NtW njhopy; VJk; jq;fSf;F njhpahJ vdTk;> ehq;fs; Nkw;gb Gyq;fspNyNa njhlHe;J trpf;fTk;> ehq;fs; nra;Jte;j njhopiyNa njhlHr;rpahf nra;J vq;fs; tho;thjhuj;ij ghjpf;fhj tifapy; toptif nra;jpLkhW Nfhhp thf;F%yk; mspj;Js;sdH.
jPHT:
jhth Gyq;fs; njhlHghf A kw;Wk; B jug;gpdHfSf;F nrhe;jkhd Gyq;fs; ,lg;ghHit nra;ag;gl;lJ. ,jpy; A jug;gpdUf;F nrhe;jkhf cs;s RkhH 30 Vf;fH nfhz;l njd;de;Njhg;GfSf;fpilapy; B jug;gpdH gy jiyKiwahf FbapUe;jjd; Nghpy; UDR ''m'' gjpNtl;by; rHf;fhH Gwk;Nghf;F ej;jk; vd gjpthf gpd;dH ej;jk; epythpj; jpl;lj;jpd; NghJ B jug;gpdHfSf;F gl;lh toq;fg;gl;L mjpy; tPLfs; fl;b FbapUe;JtUfpd;wdH. Nkw;fz;lthW FbapUe;JtUk; http://www.judis.nic.in 13/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 tPLfspypUe;J rhiyfSf;F nry;y A jug;gpdHfSf;F nrhe;jkhd Gyq;fspd; topahfNt nrd;W tUtjhf njhpatUfpwJ. A kw;Wk; B jug;gpdHfspd; thf;F %yq;fs; kw;Wk; tprhuiz Mtzq;fs; ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ. ,jpy; A jug;gpdUf;F nrhe;jkhd njd;de;Njhg;Gfs; cs;s Gyq;fspy; A jug;gpduhy; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gLk; guhkhpg;G gzpfspd; NghJk;> Njq;fha; gwpf;Fk; NghJk; B jug;gpdH vt;tpj ,ilA+Wk; Vw;gLj;jf; $lhJ vd;Wk;> mNjNghy; B jug;gpdH FbapUe;JtUk; tPLfSf;F nry;Yk; ghijia milf;fNth B jug;gpdhpd; tPLfspy; FbapUf;Fk; egHfSf;F A jug;gpduhy; vt;tpj ,ilA+Wk; Vw;gLj;jNth $lhJ vd;Wk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ. NkYk;> Nkw;fz;l cj;jutpid ,Ujug;gpdUk; gpd;gw;Wk; tifapy; mjpuhk;gl;bdk; fhty; Ma;thsH fz;fhzpj;jplTk; ,jd; %yk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.''
20.From the above, it is made clear that the first respondent / Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, being the Revenue Officer, had held that as per the revenue records, for the land in S.No.337/1 one M.M.S.Mohaideen, for the lands in S.Nos.344/1A and 345/1 one M.S.Jamaluddin, for the land in S.No.345/1B one M.S.Shahabuddin and for the lands in S.Nos.347/1, 348/1 and 348/2, one M.S.Saifuddin, are the owners. On the other hand, according to the first respondent/Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, as per the UDR ''A'' Register, S.Nos.337/2, 337/3, 337/5, 344/2, 344/3, 345/2, 345/3, 345/5, 346/2 and 347/2 are earlier classified as ''Natham'' and subsequently, Patta has been issued in favour of various persons including the forefathers of the writ petitioner.
21.In otherwise, the writ petitioner herself had admitted that the lands in dispute stand in the name of some private individuals. Her forefathers had orally http://www.judis.nic.in 14/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 purchased the said lands before three decades ago. The said submission reveals the fact that the title to the disputed lands has not been changed in favour of the writ petitioner and others so far. Further, in respect of the same, none of the parties had stated that civil suit is pending before the competent Court of Law.
22.At this juncture, it is relevant and useful to see the judgment of this Court in the case of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., Rep. by its Company Secretary, M.Rathinakumar Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Suburban Commissionerate, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai and others reported in 2010 (4) CTC 324, wherein at Paragraph 14, it has been held as follows:-
''14.This case is a classic example of Police and Revenue Officials interfering in civil matters. The Supreme Court and this Court are repeatedly giving directions not to interfere in civil disputes between private individuals as adjudication of civil disputes can be made only through Courts created for the said purpose and the Court orders are to be obeyed by all concerned, whether it is Revenue Authorities, Police or private litigants.''
23.Therefore, until the competent Court passed an order declaring that the writ petitioner is the owner of the disputed lands, the writ petitioner and others cannot claim any right and title over the said lands. Furthermore, without filing any Civil Suit before the competent Civil forum, claiming title by mentioning the reason as above, is not at all acceptable one. Moreover, during the time of enquiry conducted by the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, the writ petitioner claims that she is a tenant http://www.judis.nic.in 15/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 under the disputed property. It shows that the writ petitioner is having two different stands for proving her possession, which is entirely self-contradictory in nature.
24.Further, mere filing of Caveat Petition by the writ petitioner under Section 148-A C.P.C. does not create any right upon her. In the legal notice dated 06.06.2020, it was claimed by the writ petitioner as her grandfather viz., Aran.Ambalam orally purchased the above said lands from one Hanifa Marakaiyar before 70 years back. On the other hand, the legal heirs of the said Hanifa Marakaiyar, taking a different stand as from time immemorial, the lands in dispute are maintained by them by appointing various persons as Watchmen. In this regard, in order to substantiate the said contention, either of the parties had not produced any relevant document to show their title. At any event, without getting any order from the competent Court of Law, we cannot say that either the writ petitioner or the private respondents are having title in S.Nos.337/1, 344/1A, 345/1, 345/1B, 347/1, 348/1 and 348/2. Since the entries made in the Revenue Records are not a document for title, the only remedy available to the writ petitioner is that she has to approach the Civil Court for the necessary relief.
25.Therefore, in the absence of any relevant materials to show their possession, the writ petitioner and others have filed these petitions for the relief stated therein. Further, a number of persons joined together on both sides and fight for certain extent of lands. Therefore, in the said circumstances, by invoking Section http://www.judis.nic.in 16/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 145 Cr.P.C. only the Sub-Collector is the competent authority to pass an order in a dispute relating to immovable property.
26.At this juncture, it is relevant and useful to see Section 145 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:-
''145.Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. -
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a 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.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression" land or water"
includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute, http://www.judis.nic.in 17/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 (4) The Magistrate shall then, without, reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence 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:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly 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).
(5) 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 Magistrate 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.
(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when http://www.judis.nic.in 18/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 he proceeds under the proviso to sub- section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
(b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).
(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto.
(8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale-proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit.
(9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing.
(10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107.''
27.In the said circumstances, in respect of the impugned order passed by the http://www.judis.nic.in 19/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the first respondent / Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, before passing the said impugned order, ought to have fulfilled the requirements contemplated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. But, here, in this case, the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, has passed an order in a mechanical manner without perusing the revenue records. The impugned order passed by the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, neither reflects the statements given by the witnesses nor the documents placed by both parties. In fact, the Sub-Collector acted as Civil Court, granting injunction permitting the ''A'' Party to pluck the coconuts in the writ petitioner's lands without considering the prima facie evidence for ownership.
28.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7866 of 2018, dated 04.03.2020 [K.Jaganathan and two others Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District and two others], wherein it has been held as follows:-
''10. …… (i) there must be a real breach of peace inviting such proceedings; (ii) there must be material on record to prove the actual breach of peace; and (iii) the Executive Magistrate should form a subjective satisfaction to initiate such proceedings. The object of this Section is to merely maintain law and order and to prevent any breach of peace.'' http://www.judis.nic.in 20/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
29.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the properties in S.Nos.336/7 and 337/1 belong to Sree Kandeswarar Swamy Temple and the Adangal enclosed in the Additional Typed Set of Papers, clearly shows that the Temple is the owner of the said properties. Moreover, the properties in S.Nos.348/1 and 348/2 stand in the name of Neelambal, wife of Karuppaiyan. He would further submit that without seeing the copy of the Adangal and other documents thoroughly, the first respondent / Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, passed the impugned order, which reflects the Civil Court's jurisdiction. In fact, in respect of the lands in dispute, without considering the prima facie evidence for ownership, permitting ''A'' Party to pluck the coconuts in the disputed lands, is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside.
30.Upon considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is not in dispute that in the impugned order, the first respondent / Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, did not mention anything about the subjective satisfaction for initiating the impugned proceedings.
31.At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that number of persons joined together on both sides and claimed the disputed property as their own property, without any authenticated documents. If the said things are permitted, definitely, it would create a law and order problem. Only, on considering the said aspect, the http://www.judis.nic.in 21/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District, registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.227 of 2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
32.At this juncture, it is relevant to see the judgment pronounced by the Full Bench of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.863 of 2011, dated 13.04.2016 [A.Dhaveethu Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District and others], wherein at Paragraph No.26, it has been held as follows:-
''26. The Supreme Court, in its decision in R.H.Bhutani considered the object and scheme of the said provision. In paras 8 and 9, it was observed as follows:-
''The object of Section 145, no doubt, is to prevent breach of peace and for that end to provide a speedy remedy by bringing the parties before the court and ascertaining who of them was in actual possession and to maintain status quo until their rights are determined a competent court. The section requires that the Magistrate must be satisfied before initiating proceedings that a dispute, regarding an immoveable property exists and that such dispute is likely to cause breach of peace. But once he is satisfied of these two conditions, the Section requires him to pass a preliminary order under Sub-S.(1) and thereafter to make an enquiry under Sub-S. (4) and pass a final order under Sub-S.(6). It is not necessary that at the time of passing the final order the apprehension of breach of peace should continue or exist. The enquiry under Sec.145 is limited to the question as to who was in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order irrespective of the rights of the parties. Under the second proviso, the party who is found to have been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next preceding the date of the preliminary order may for the purpose of the http://www.judis.nic.in 22/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 enquiry be deemed to have been in possession on the date of that order. The opposite party may of course prove that dispossession took place more than two months next preceding the date of that order and in that case the Magistrate would have to cancel his preliminary order. On the other hand, if he is satisfied that dispossession was both forcible and wrongful and took place within the prescribed period, the party dispossessed would be deemed to be in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order and the Magistrate would then proceed to make his final order directing the dispossessor to restore possession and prohibit him from interfering with that possession until the applicant is evicted in due course of law. This is broadly the scheme of Sec.145'' ''The satisfaction under Sub-S.(1) is of the Magistrate. The question whether on the materials before him, he should initiate proceedings or not is, therefore, in his discretion which, no doubt, has to be exercised in accordance with the well recognised rules of law in that behalf. No hard and fast rule can, therefore, be laid down as to the sufficiency of material for his satisfaction. The language of the Sub- Section is clear and unambiguous that he can arrive at his satisfaction both from the police report or "from other information" which must include an application by the party dispossessed. The High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, would not go into the question of sufficiency of material, which has satisfied the Magistrate.''
33.Further, in the same judgment at Paragraph No.41, the Full Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
''41.In Rajpati, the Court restricted the scope of judicial review by http://www.judis.nic.in 23/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 Higher Courts of the order of the Executive Magistrate exercised under Section 145 of the Code in the following words:-
''Further, it is well settled that under S.145 it is for the Magistrate to be satisfied regarding the existence of a breach of the peace and once he records his satisfaction in the preliminary order, the High Court, in revision, cannot go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials on the basis of which the satisfaction of the Magistrate is based.....'' ''Assuming, however, that there was an omission on the part of the Magistrate to mention in his final order that there was breach of the peace, that being an error of procedure would clearly fall within the domain of a curable irregularity which is not sufficient to vitiate the order passed by the Magistrate, particularly when there is nothing to show in the instant case that any prejudice was caused to any of the parties who had the full opportunity to produce their evidence before the Court. It was therefore not correct on the part of the High Court to have interfered with the order of the Magistrate on a purely technical ground when the aggrieved party had a clear remedy in the civil court."
34.Ultimately, in respect of 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the Full Bench of this Court in the same judgment at Paragraph No.63, has held as follows:-
''63. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the questions posed by the learned Judge as follows:-
"1.Though the Executive Magistrate is required to pass a preliminary order under Section 145(1), the absence of the same will not vitiate his final order under Section 145(4) of the Code.
2.The failure of an Executive Magistrate to pass a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code is a mere irregularity and will not affect his jurisdiction http://www.judis.nic.in 24/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
3.Considering the nature of power vested on the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code, no prejudice will be caused to parties.
4.The aggrieved parties are empowered to move the very same Authority for reviewing his decision or in its absence, move the competent civil court for an appropriate relief either regarding the title or regarding the right to possession. In rare cases, they can move this Court for a judicial review either under Section 397 of the Code or under Article 226/227 of The Constitution." ''
35.Therefore, the legal infirmities now indicated by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner are already settled as above in the above referred judgment. More than that, the writ petitioner is empowered to approach the same Officer for re-considering the impugned order. However, the facts and circumstances is very clear only upon the decision rendered by the competent Civil Court, both the parties are entitled to claim right and title over the disputed properties. In the absence of such decree, it is impossible to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent/Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai. But, here it is a case, where the revenue records maintained by the first respondent shows that in respect of the survey numbers relating to the disputed properties, only the name of ''A'' Party found place as they are the owners of the said lands. Until the same has been set aside by the competent Court of Law or until the same has been changed by the competent authority, it should be presumed that ''A'' Party alone is the owner of the said lands. Only on considering the said situation, in the impugned order, the first respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 25/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 herein permitted ''A'' Party to pluck the coconuts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the permission given by the first respondent to ''A'' Party is against the right having by the writ petitioner and also in filing the suit before the Civil Court for necessary reliefs.
36.In the light of the discussions stated supra, this Court come to the conclusion that the order passed by the first respondent/Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petitions are also dismissed and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 24.09.2020
Internet : Yes
smn2
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Divisional Executive Magistrate/ Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.
2.The Tahsildar, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 26/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020
3.The Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam G-3 Police Station, Adiramapattinam, Pattukkottai – 614 701, Thanjavur District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 27/28 CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 & 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
smn2 Pre-delivery common order in CRL OP(MD)Nos.8646 and 8123 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.8329 of 2020 24.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 28/28