( 1 ) IN these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the endorsement dated 3rd March 1988 bearing No. B. S. Application 67/88 issued by the Circle inspector of Police, Bhadravathi (Annexure-C) is illegal and without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) BY the aforesaid impugned endorsement, the Circle Inspector, Bhadravathi has directed the petitioners not to enter upon the land bearing S. No. 91 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas of Koppa Village as the Land tribunal has recorded a finding in favour of resptondent -3 while rejecting the application filed in Form No. 7 by the petitioners and his possession is also supported by the entries in record of Rights. The endorsement is as follows :

( 3 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the order dated 15-9-1987 passed by the land Tribunal, Bhadravathi in No. KLR. MA 2582/74-5, 255/71-5 and INA. 32/83-84 (Annexure-B) rejecting the application filed by the petitioners in Form No. 7 is challenged in the appeal before the Land reforms Appellate Authority and the appeal is still pending; that it is not open to the circle Inspector of Police or any Police officer to exercise the power of a Civil Court or of a Land Reforms Appellate Authority to issue an order of injunction restraining the petitioners from entering into the land in question as such it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the endorsement issued is without jurisdiction.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, Sri M. P. Eswarappa, learned counsel for rcspondent-3 the landholder of the land in question contends that the Land Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in the order Anncxure -B that the petitioners have not cultivated the land in question as tenants and has accordingly rejected their application; that it is respondent -3 being the landholder who has been in possession of the land in question and cultivating the same, therefore, the entry of the petitioner on the land in question amounts to criminal trespass, therefore the circle Inspector of Police is justified in issuing an order restraining the petitioners from entering upon the land in question in order to prevent commission of offence; that Section 149 cr. P. C. empowers the Circle Inspector of Police to issue an order in the nature of injunction to prevent commission of an offence.

( 5 ) THE stand taken by the learned High court Government Pleader on behalf of the circle Inspector of Police is that the endorsement cannot be read as preventing the petitioners from entering the land in question but it is a notice warning them not to give rise to any such situation which would lead to breach of peace and have the dispute between the parties settled peacefully through a court of law.

( 6 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid contentions the point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned endorsement dated 3rd March 1988 issued by the Circle Inspector of police, Bhadravathi, is within his jurisdiction.

( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners have filed applications in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in the land in question. The 3rd respondent disputes the claim made by them. The Tribunal on holding an enquiry, has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners by the order dated 15-9-1987 (Annexure - B ). Being aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred appeals before the Land reforms Appellate Authority, Shimoga and those appeals are pending. The Land reforms Appellate Authority, Shimoga, has also refused to stay the order of the Land tribunal on the ground that as the Land tribunal has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners, there is nothing to be stayed.

( 8 ) THE contention of Sri Eswarappa, learned Counsel for respondent -3 is that in the light of the finding recorded by the Land tribunal it becomes the duty of the police to enforce it, that if the petitioners try to violate the order of the Land Tribunal by attempting to ente