Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr. Ratnam And Ors. vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate And Revenue ... on 23 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALD(CRI)528, 2001CRILJ2755
Author: Vaman Rao
Bench: Vaman Rao
ORDER Vaman Rao, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., to quash the order of the Executive Magistrate and Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District, the second respondent herein, in Proceedings No. A/7568/99 dt. 24-8-1.999 in which an order under Section 145(1), Cr. P.C., is purported to have been passed and the property in dispute has been directed to be attached.
2. It appears that the Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station filed F.I.R. No. 359/99, dt. 14-8-1999 said to have been registered under Section 145, Cr. P.C., before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District, stating that there was a dispute over an extent of Ac. 4.00 land in respect of Sy. No. 222 of Gajularamaram village between the fifth respondent herein, Hari Babu of Lahari Enclave and Developers of Usha Mullapudi who are claiming the disputed land. That report mentions that the parties are indulging themselves in criminal activities and creating law and order problem over the spot and that there was very likelihood of causing breach of peace and law and order problem. The Inspector of Police thus requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to attach the said land under Section 145, Cr. P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is said to have been transmitted to the Mandal Executive Magistrate (Mandal Revenue Officer) for taking action. The Mandal Executive Magistrate after recording the above facts passed the order as follows :
3. "Keeping in view of the above, it is ordered to attach the disputed land to an extent of Ac. 4.00 G. in Sy. No. 222 of Gajularamaram village under Section 145, Cr. P.C., into Government custody with immediate effect. The Mandal Revenue Inspector is directed to take over possession of the above disputed land into Government custody and kept under the custody of the V.A.O., concerned until further orders.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirement of Section 145, Cr. P.C. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that the petitioners have not adverted to the subsequent developments in the matter in regard to the filing of a suit by the petitioners in the Court of 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, which is seized of the matter. There is some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order which must be deemed to have been passed under Section 145(1) and 146, Cr. P.C, does not satisfy the requirements of both the provisions of law. Firstly, the Mandal Executive Magistrate merely referred to the request of the Inspector of Police to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with his opinion that there was a dispute which was likely to cause breach of peace, but has failed to record his own opinion. It is also seen that the learned Executive Magistrate failed to call upon the concerned parties to the dispute to file their written statements as to the actual possession of the land in question which is mandatory under Section 145(1), Cr. P.C. This omission is significant inasmuch as in the absence of any notice calling upon the parties to the dispute to present their case as to the actual possession of the land, the further proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. can scarcely be taken and it will have the effect of an order passed under Section 146 becoming the final order without any possibility of charge after hearing the parties.
5. In regard to the order of the learned Executive Magistrate for attaching the property it is obvious that he was oblivious of requirement of Section 146, Cr. P.C, before passing an order for attachment of property in dispute. Section 146 contemplates passing of an order under the said provision for attachment of the property in dispute after being satisfied that the case was one of emergency. There is no whisper in the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate as to how he viewed it as one of emergency. Section 146 further mandates that before passing an order, the learned Magistrate has to decide that none of the parties was in possession of the property in question or that he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession of the disputed land.
6. In view of this commissions, the order of attachment passed by the learned Executive Magistrate cannot be considered to be in consonance with the provisions in Section 146, Cr. P.C. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate is clearly in breach of the requirements of Section 145 and 146, Cr. P.C. The impugned order therefore, is liable to be quashed and is here by quashed.
7. However, as pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the civil suit has already been filed by the petitioners herein in the Ist Addl. Senior Civil Judge's Court, Rangareddy District and it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that temporary injunction has also been ordered. However, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the temporary injunction was for a limited period which has already lapsed. It is not necessary to go into this question as to whether temporary injunction is presently in force or not. Suffice it to say that the Civil Court is already seized of the matter and all questions relating to the possession of the disputed land in question shall be decided by the Civil Court and that the parties will abide by whatever order is passed in respect of possession of the property in the said suit.
The petition is allowed with the above observation.