The finality and authoritativeness of the decision rendered by a tribunal are essential tests to determine a judicial pronouncement.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the order made by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal on 20-12-1966 in favour of the respondents in this petition is an order as contemplated by Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this question may briefly be stated as follows:-In the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a preliminary order was passed on 4-3-1952. The dispute related to the possession of Inam land bearing Survey number 237 of Bellekare Inam Village. The Magistrate thereafter made an order on 15-12-1952 to the following effect.

"both parties submit that they have no evidence to adduce in this court. Hence they are directed to settle their claim in a competent court. The attachment of the schedule property and the receiver appointed to manage the property shall continue under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. and 146 (2) Cr. P. C. respectively pending production of an order from competent Civil Court. Filed the application, Signed 15-12-1952. Thereafter the first party member filed O. S. 18/1954 for declaration of his title and possession but it was later on withdrawn. In the meanwhile, the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams abolition Act 1954. , (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force and the said Inam village vested in the Government as from 2-10-1956. The members of the first and second party initiated proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner for having their names registered either under Section 5 or under Section 6 of the Inam Abolition Act. Ultimately, the Mysore Revenue appellate Tribunal held by its order dated 20-12-1966 that the members of the second party were in possession of the land. The said order was challenged before this court in a writ petition. But the same was not admitted. Thus the order made by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal on 20-12-1966 became final. "

( 3 ) SINCE the property was under attachment and a receiver was appointed, the members of the second party made an application to the Magistrate on 16-10-1967 praying that Receiver may be discontinued and possession of the land should be handed over to them. That application was allowed by the Magistrate on 11-3-1968, directing the Receiver to hand over possession of the disputed property to the members of the second party. He further directed that the balance of the amount in deposit in respect of the disputed land should be paid to the members of the second party.

( 4 ) IT is the correctness of this order that is being challenged in this petition by the member of the first party.

( 5 ) THE principal contention urged by Mr. Raghavendra Rao for the petitioner is that the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal is not an order of a competent Court and therefore, the learned Magistrate was in error in directing the Receiver to hand over possession of property to the second party. It is necessary to state here that the order of the Magistrate was made in the year 1952 under S. 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it stood then reads:

"if the Magistrate decides that none of the parties was then in such possession, or is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach it until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto, or the person entitled to possession thereof. "

Therefore, the attachment and the continuance of the Receiver appointed by him under Section 146 (1) and (2) has to continue until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto. The principal question that had to be decided by the Magistrate was the question of possession and if he found himself unable to determine that question, then, he may take necessary steps as contemplated under Section 146 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it stood prior to its

Click Here to Read the rest of this document