JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore, in M.C.No.248 of 2014 (A2/4196/2014), dated 08.05.2015 under Section 145(4) of Cr.P.C. holding the second respondent to be put in possession.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the ‘A’ party against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore, in M.C.No.248 of 2014 (A2/4196/2014), dated 08.05.2015 under Section 145(4) of Cr.P.C. holding the second respondent to be put in possession.

2. In view of the dispute arising between ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party, the Tahsildar has passed an order under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C., whereby, both the parties are restrained from entering the premises. Subsequently, an R.D.O enquiry was conducted and order was passed under Section 145 (4) of Cr.P.C, on 08.05.2015. The ‘A’ party is the District Congress President, Indian National Congress, Cuddalore, while ‘B’ party belongs to G.K.Vasan group.

3. The Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer has taken a view that earlier there was an order passed in M.C.No.2/1996 whereby, the Taluk Executive Magistrate has handed over possession to ‘B’ Party and hence, the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, had passed a similar order. Challenging the said order, the above Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the ‘A’ party.

4. Mr.Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar for the petitioner/’A’ Party contended that the reasoning assigned by the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer is contrary to Section 145 (4) of Cr.P.C. Since the crucial point that has to be decided as to whether who is in possession of the property on the date of the dispute and without any reference to the same, the impugned order was passed. Furthermore, earlier civil suits have been withdrawn, in view of the subsequent merge of the ‘Tamil Maanila Congress’ along with the ‘Indian National Congress’ and again, it was split up and hence, the incident has taken place. Learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that the subject matter of the land and premises are not individual property and the property belong to the property of ‘A’ party.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that on the earlier round of litigation, a similar proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was conducted and it was completed to its logical end and found in favour of the ‘B’ party. The said order, which was attained finality, is still in force and in pursuance of the said order, ‘B’ party is still in continuous possession and the learned counsel made submissions in support of the impugned order.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent made submissions as to the action taken by the revenue authorities.

7. After hearing the rival submissions and on perusal of records, it is seen that the petition premises is immovable property measuring 1 acre and 11.715 sq. ft. of land in T.S.No.449/4 situated in Bharathi Road, Cuddalore Town called as Nehru Bhavan. According to ‘B’ party, the property was under the possession and enjoyment of ‘B’ party’s father P.R.Srinivasa Padaiyachi. On the death of ‘B’ party’s father P.R.Srinivasa Padayachi, the second respondent herein/’B’ party has inherited the same as a legal heir and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. ‘B’ party’s father had permitted the above property, to be used as Janata Party office, when there was a split in the Congress Party in the national level. However, the said Janatha Party never claimed any right or title over the same. Similarly, in the year 1995 also when there was a proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C, in M.C.No.2