SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
E. Thyagarajan - Petitioner
Versus
Ravi & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.R.C. No.353 of 2015 and M.P.Nos. 1 and 3 of 2015
Decided On : 07.07.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr. Y. Jyothish Chander.
For Respondents: Mr. D. Murthy for R.1 to R.3.
Mr. V. Arul Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.4.

The title to the property can only be decided by the Civil Court and cannot be determined in a revision proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision Case - Jurisdiction of Tahsildar under Section 145 of Cr.P.C - Section 20(4) Cr.P.C, 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 296, 2008-1-L.W.(Crl.) 460 - The Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to pass a preliminary order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. - The Tahsildar's jurisdiction and the requirement for a valid order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were discussed. The court emphasized that the title can only be decided by the Civil Court and cannot be determined in a revision proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed ownership of a disputed property and objected to the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to pass the order and the requirement for a valid order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were contested.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and emphasized that the title can only be decided by the Civil Court.

Issues: Jurisdiction of Tahsildar under Section 145 Cr.P.C, validity of the impugned order, and the scope of revision proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to pass a preliminary order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The court cannot decide the title, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is set aside. The court observed that the title can only be determined by the Civil Court and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for any disputes regarding the title.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order passed by the Taluk Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar at Uthiramerur, in a proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. in Pa.Mu.No.4272/2013/A1, dated 18.02.2015.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the old gramanatham S.No.21/2 corresponding to New S.No.194 in No.15, Sethupattu Village is a Gramanatham house site area. In the said Gramanatham land, the house site with a cattle shed comprised in present Gramanatham S.No.194/7 – 0.04 cents corresponding to Old S.No.21/2 part Gramanatham absolutely belonged to the petitioner's father Ekambara Gounder by virtue of his purchase of 0.02 cents under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1956 vide Doc.No.641/1956 from Velu Naicker and another 0.02 cents under registered sale deed dated 27.01.1959 vide Doc.No.122/1959 from Ranganathan, both on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Uthiramerur and ever since, his father was in exclusive possession and after his death, the petitioner, who is the son, is in continuous and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property by using it as a part of his residence and a cattle shed. While so, on 28.12.2013, while the Special Sub-Inspector of Police was engaged in patrol, he saw that there was a quarrel going on between the petitioner and others, thereby, they were causing hindrance to public peace and hence, he had registered a case in Crime No.106/2013 on the file of G-11, Peru Nagar Police Station, dated 28.12.2013 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. alleging that there is a likelihood of breach of peace. After receipt of summons from the Tahsildar, Uthiramerur, the petitioner has filed his objections dated 22.01.2015. Alleging that the Tahsildar without report from the police has initiated proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and without any authority, he has passed orders thereon, this Criminal Revision Case is filed.

3. Mr. Y. Jyothish Chander, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the Tahsildar has not assigned any reasons for passing the order as contemplated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. He would further contend that the Tahsildar has got no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C and the proceedings, if any under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is cognizable and maintainable only by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He would further submit that while the Special Sub-Inspector of Police was engaged in patrol on 28.12.2013, there was a quarrel going on between the petitioner and others, thereby, they were causing hindrance to public peace and hence, he had registered a case in Crime No.106/2013 on the file of G-11, Peru Nagar Police Station, dated 28.12.2013 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and the report is forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanchipuram, who alone is competent to proceed under Section 145 Cr.P.C and he assumes jurisdiction. He would further contend that the Tahsildar without considering the objections dated 22.01.2015 and without assigning any reason has passed the impugned order, restraining both parties from entering into the subject land and therefore, the impugned order is per se illegal.

4. Mr. V. Arul, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the fourth respondent would fairly state that the Tahsildar has got no power and it is only the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has got power to pass the impugned order. He would further submit that the report was forwarded only to the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, the impugned order is wrong and it has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer.

5. Mr. D. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would contend that the matter pertains to civil dispute and that even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700, Ranbir Singh vs. Dalbir Singh and others, only the Civil Court has to deal with the title. He would further submit that t












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top