1. Land dispute — Proceedings under Sections 145 and 146, Code of Criminal Procedure — High Court directions for land demarcation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 875
1996(4) Supreme 763
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
C.V. Raja Rao & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Mirza Basheer Baig & Ors. -Respondents
Crl. Appeal No.662 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 261/92)
Decided on 30-4-1996
Important Points
The Court affirmed the High Court's direction for the Survey Department to demarcate and localize disputed land to facilitate an expeditious enquiry by the Magistrate under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C., finding no grounds for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Subject
Land Dispute - Survey and Demarcation
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India-Article 136-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 145 and 146-Proceedings under-Dispute regarding land of an extent of 4922 sq. yds.-High Court quashed proceedings of initiation of action under Sections 145 and 146-Court directed that Survey Department should demarcate land, localise the same-Magistrate would take action pursuant to report thereof-No case warranting interference-Proceedings pending at different stages in different courts will be subject to appropriate orders. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to High Court directions regarding land localization and the conduct of enquiry under Section 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 2 )
3. Demarcation and localization of land by the Survey Department are necessary for the Magistrate to take action according to law under Section 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 3 )
4. Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is not warranted when the High Court's directions for factual localization are essential for the pending legal enquiry. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court decline to interfere under Article 136 in a land dispute?
The Court will decline interference when the High Court has already issued appropriate directions for the demarcation and localization of the land to facilitate the completion of a legal enquiry. (Para 3 )
7. How should a Magistrate proceed in a land dispute under Section 146 Cr.P.C. when boundaries are disputed?
The Magistrate should act pursuant to a report from the Survey Department, which is tasked with demarcating and localizing the land with reference to survey records. (Para 2 , 3 )
8. Does the Supreme Court express an opinion on the merits of a case when proceedings are pending at different stages in various courts?
No, the Court may decline to express an opinion on the merits if proceedings are still pending at different stages in different courts. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court dated April 2, 1991 made in Criminal Application No.334/91. It is not necessary to narrate in elaboration all the proceedings that have taken place between the parties. Suffice it to state that in respect of the lands bearing Survey No.202 situated in Lallaguda in Secunderabad of Andhra Pradesh which is now part of the city of Hyderabad, an extent of 4922 sq. yds. is in dispute. Several proceedings have taken place between the parties narration of which is not material. The High Court in quashed proceedings of the initiation of the action under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. gave the following directions :
"Since there are some allegations that the police were not giving aid to the petitioners even though there are injunction orders in their favour, I feel it is desirable that some high official of the Survey Department like the Assistant Director of Survey may be directed to inspect the suit land and localise the suit land with the assistance of a Inspector of Survey with reference to the survey records. The learned Magistrate then under Section 146 Cr.P.C. may complete the enquiry expeditiously and pass final orders. Since the parties are fighting out the matter since a long time, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously and pass final orders, preferably within a period of three months from today."
3. In view of the above directions, it would be necessary that the Survey Department should demarcate the land, localise the same with the assistance of the Inspector of the Survey and Land Record as directed by the High Court and the Magistrate would take action pursuant to the report thereof according to law. In view of the facts in this case, we think that it is not a case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are not expressing any opinion on merit since proceedings are pending at different stages in different courts. Whatever proceedings have been taken place, will be subject to the appropriate orders.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal accordingly dsmissed.
*******
Parallel Citations of other Journals ;
C.V.Raja Rao & Anr. v. Mirza Basheer Baig & Ors., 1996(4) Supreme 763
00021
