Madras High Court
C.Ramasamy Nadar vs Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 July, 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.07.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.102 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015
1.C.Ramasamy Nadar
2.Arunachalam
3.Sathyaseelan
4.Kandhasamy
5.Muniasamy
6.Rathinam
7.Govindan
8.Muniasamy @ Paraimuni
9.Pandi
10.Murugesan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sub Divisional Magistrate,
cum Sub Collector,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.Muniasamy
3.Samayan
4.Karuppaiah
5.Thangaraj
6.Karuppaiah
7.Karuppusamy
8.Pazhani
9.Saravanan
10.Ramasamy
11.Ramu .. Respondents/
Respondents
PRAYER
Criminal revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying
to call for the records relating to the order, dated 30.12.2014, made in
Na.Ka.A2/4050/2014 under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. by the first respondent
herein and quash the same.
!For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhahari
^For 1st respondent : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
For respondents 2 to 11 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
:ORDER
The petitioners are the 'A' party before the Executive Magistrate cum Sub Collector, Paramakudi in Na.Ka.No.A2/4050/2014. The respondents 2 to 11 are the 'B' party. That was a proceeding initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the admitted case, the petitioners viz., 'A' party belong to a particular community, whereas the respondents 2 to 11 viz., the B party belong to a different community. So far as the respondents 2 to 11 are concerned, they have constructed a temple in Survey No.511/6 at Tholur Village in Paramakudi Taluk. So far as the 'A' party viz., the petitioners herein are concerned, they have constructed a temple in Survey No.511/8 in the same village. It appears that there is some misunderstanding between the people belonging to these communities in the village. The petitioners have tried to construct a compound wall surrounding the temple constructed in Survey No.511/8. The respondents are opposing the same. This dispute was likely to result in break down of the law and order. Therefore, the first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector initiated the above said proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and after holding enquiry, he has passed the final order dated 30.12.2014, wherein the first respondent herein has directed that the A party should not make any alteration or construct a compound wall in Survey No.511/8. He has further directed that no further construction shall be made either by A party or B party in the land comprised in Survey Nos.511/6 and 511/8. The last direction issued was that both the parties should not indulge in any disturbance to the law and order. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court with this revision.
2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 11. I have also perused the records carefully.
3.Admittedly, as of now, the land comprised in Survey No.511/8 is a patta land in favour of the A party. The patta stands in the name of one Ramasamy Nadar S/o.Chithiravel Nadar in the capacity as trustee of Pathirakaliamman Temple which is situated in Survey No.511/8. In Survey No.511/8, of-course, there is some vacant place. The B party people are objecting to the compound wall being constructed surrounding to the temple and the vacant land comprised in Survey No.511/8. In between the land comprised in Survey Nos.511/8 and 511/6, there is a road comprised in Survey No.511/7. Despite the said fact, the B party people claim right over the vacant land in Survey No.511/8. Whether they have got such a right or not, is a civil dispute which is to be decided by the Civil Court. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector cannot decide the said dispute. Therefore, the direction Nos.1 & 2 issued by the first respondent are liable to be set aside. The B party, if so advised, can very well approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief, if they could establish that they have got some kind of right over the land in Survey No.511/8.
4.In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the direction Nos.1 & 2 mentioned in the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 30.12.2014, are hereby set aside. However, if so advised, the B party can approach the Civil Court for any relief. Considering the fact that this dispute involves people belonging to two communities with a view to avoid aggravation of the situation, I direct the A party not to make any alteration or to construct any compound wall in the land comprised in Survey No.511/8 for a period of 3 months from today. This direction is to enable the B party, if so advised, to approach the Civil Court and to get any relief within the said period of 3 months. If the B party people do not approach the Civil Court, after the expiry of the 3 months, the A party can enjoy the land in Survey No.511/8 in any manner by making any improvement or by constructing the compound wall. It is brought to my notice that Kumbabisekam, has been fixed for the Pathrakaliamman Temple situated in Survey No.511/8 on 27.08.2015. This order shall not prevent the A party from celebrating Kumbabisekam as scheduled without causing any disturbance to the law and order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate, cum Sub Collector, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District..