Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Jerom Rayappan & Another - Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional officer, Thiruvarur & Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 83 & 108 of 2013
Decided On : 29-07-2022
For the Parties:N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, R. Vivekananthan, V. Selvaraj for M/s Devadason & Sagar, Advocates, Suganthan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The decision of the Civil Court after proper trial would be final and prevail upon the other orders passed summarily, and the civil court has jurisdiction to make an interim order inconsistent with the order of the Executive Magistrate if the party can demonstrate a strong prima facie case showing the finding of the Executive Magistrate to be without jurisdiction, palpably wrong, or self-inconsistent.
Headnote:
Cr.P.C. - Dispute over possession of agricultural land - Sections 397, 401 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 145 of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the legal principles governing the effect of the order of a Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as well as the jurisdiction of the civil court to make an interim order inconsistent with the order of the Executive Magistrate. The court emphasized that the order of the Magistrate is entitled to respect and weighed before the competent Court at the interlocutory stage, but at the stage of final adjudication of rights, the order of the Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence. It also clarified that the civil court has jurisdiction to make an interim order inconsistent with the order of the Executive Magistrate if the party can demonstrate a strong prima facie case showing the finding of the Executive Magistrate to be without jurisdiction, palpably wrong, or self-inconsistent. The court also referred to the legal principle that the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties, and the orders of the civil court would be binding on the Magistrate.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over possession of agricultural land between two parties, with one party seeking permanent injunction restraining the other party from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. The dispute led to criminal complaints and proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. initiated by the Executive Magistrate to prevent a breach of peace and save the standing crops.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the purpose of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. had outlived its purpose, as there was no issue of breach of peace in the locality at the time of the court's consideration. The court emphasized that the decision of the Civil Court after proper trial would be final and prevail upon the other orders passed summarily, and directed the parties to let in evidence before the trial Court and prove their possession as on the date of filing the suit.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., the jurisdiction of the civil court to make an interim order inconsistent with the order of the Executive Magistrate, and the extent of land harvested by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. had outlived its purpose, and emphasized the jurisdiction of the civil court to make an interim order inconsistent with the order of the Executive Magistrate if the party can demonstrate a strong prima facie case showing the finding of the Executive Magistrate to be without jurisdiction, palpably wrong, or self-inconsistent. The court also directed the parties to let in evidence before the trial Court and prove their possession as on the date of filing the suit.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the Criminal Revision Cases, directing the parties to let in evidence before the trial Court and prove their possession as on the date of filing the suit. The trial Court was instructed to proceed to decide the dispute on merit based on the evidence.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order dated 17.01.2013 in Na.Ka.No.95/2013/A-5 on the file of the 1st respondent.
Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.95/2013/A-5 dated 18.01.2013.)
Common Order:
1. Late Sir.A.T.Panneerselvam owner of a large estate of land measuring more than 200 acres in Thirvarur District died leaving 3 sons and 3 daughters. It is claimed that his estate was divided into 3 lots under schedules “A”, “B” and “C” among his sons by way of a registered partition deed dated 02/05/1953. The residual properties left in common under “D” schedule. Subsequently, the “ D” schedule property also got divided among them. The three sons of Sir.A.T.Panneerselvam, later had bequeathed their shares in the property to their kins. Since most of them were landlords in absentia, they have leased the land or engaged agents for cultivation.
2. Mr.Martin Selvam, who is the son of Edward Thamariselvam, grand son of A.T.Panneerselvam, approached the District Munsif Court, Nannilam as lease under Mr.Jerome Rayappan (11th Defendant) and Mr.Alexander Rayappan (12th defendant) for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (totally 12 in numbers), their men or agents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties (about 51 items) till he is evicted under due process of law. The suit filed during the month of July, 2012 and taken on file by O.S.No.68/2012 by District Munsif Court, Nannilam.
3. The cause of action for this suit as found in the plaint is that, during the month of November 2011 and in the 2nd week of February 2012, when the defendants came over to Selvapuram Village, they demanded to surrender the possession of the suit properties to them and on 10/11/2011 and on 13/04/2012, they lodged police complaints against the plaintiff and against the sub tenants under the plaintiff.
4. The records placed by the parties indicates that, in respect of properties traced to Late Sir.A.T.Panneer Selvam, the dispute between the owners and the leasee/cultivating tenants had led to filing of criminal complaints immediately before filing of this suit. They are Crime No. 169/2012, dated 15.04.2012; Crime No. 201/2012 dated 21.07.2012; and Crime No. 202/2012 dated 21.07.2012.
5. After filing the suit, the plaintiff Martin Selvam has given a police complaint to the police alleging disturbance to his peaceful possession of the property and the same was taken as C.S.R.No.435/2012 dated 13/12/2012. In turn, Jerome Rayappan on his part lodged a complaint against Martin Selvam that he is cultivating the land through one Divakaran and when he went to harvest the paddy, Martin Selvam is preventing him from harvesting the paddy. He wielded gun and threatened. This complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 08/2013.
6. The complaint of Martin Selvam Dated 13/12/2012 taken as C.S.R.No.435/2012 and the complaint of Jerome Rayappan registered in Crime No.08/2013 dated 11.01.2013 by the Nannilam Police triggered issuance of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C by the Executive Magistrate, Tiruvarur. The Police after registering the complaint of Jerome Rayappan, reported to the Executive Magistrate about the likelihood of breach of peace due to dispute between the group led by Jeroom Rayappan ('A' party ) and the group led by Martin Selvam ('B' party) regarding harvesting of the standing crops.
7. The Executive Magistrate in this connection caused notice dated 17/01/2013 to both the parties to participate in the enquiry fixed on the next day i.e. on 18/01/2013. Both parties participated in the enquiry. Jerome Rayappan representing the A party to ensure peace had said he has no objection for harvest and keep the yield under the custody of revenue officials. Martin Selvam who represented 'B' party had objec
