Possession rights under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. must be determined without infringing on principles of natural justice, particularly regarding notice and hearing.

ORDER :

M.Nirmal Kumar, J.

Challenging the order dated 25.01.2024, passed by the 1^st Respondent, under Sections 145, 145(i), 146 & 146(i) of Cr.P.C., by declaring that the 3^rd respondent is entitled to retain the possession rights in respect of the land in R.S.No.48/3A/1/A of No.21, Thirunallar Revenue Village, measuring an extent of 00.53.57 H:A:Ca., the Petitioner / B-Party has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

2. The gist of the case is that the 2^nd Respondent apprehending breach of peace and public tranquillity due to dispute over the possession and title right claimed by the Petitioner / B party and 3^rd respondent / A Party in R.S.No.48/3/A/1, Patta No.484 extent of 00.53.57 H:A:Ca. of Thirunallar Revenue Village. The 3^rd respondent lodged a complaint that someone has illegally occupied the said property, put up a thatched hut, obtained House Tax receipts fraudulently from the Tirunallar Panchayat and applied for Electricity Service Connection. According to the 3^rd Respondent / A Party, it is a family property and the property was settled by his grandmother Janaki Ammal W/o.Ayyasami Iyer, in favour of his mother Mallika and his brother Santosh Gopalakrishnan, Jayakumar, Seetharaman and the 3^rd respondent. The Petitioner / B Party denied the same and submitted that a portion of the said land to an extent of 45 00- 10-45 Ha.Ca in R.S.No.48/3 in Thirunallar Village was taken into possession by him after paying the entire sale consideration to the power agent Semia @ Sathanantham, proprietor of Karaikal Balamurugan Finance on 20.08.2007, by way of an unregistered sale agreement. This being so, the 3^rd respondent / A Party objecting to the Petitioner's right and enjoyment of the property and hence, a complaint has been lodged by both parties to the 2^nd respondent, Tirunallar Police, who sent a Report, No.5692 dated 23.07.2021 to the 1^st respondent on the basis of the information. Further, a report was also obtained from the Tahsildar, Tirunallar. Both the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent summoned for enquiry with relevant documents. The 3^rd respondent / A party presented a copy of cancellation of House Tax and Water Tax permits cancelled by the Commissioner of Panchayat, Tirunallar and a copy of the FIR in Crime No.70/2007 for trespassing into the private land bearing R.S.No.48/3 in Tirunallar.

3. Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the disputed property is situated in R.S.No.48/3A/1, Patta No.484, an extent of 00-10-75 (H.A.Ca) of Tirunallar Village. The Superintendent of Police, Karaikal was ordered to to take possession of the property and to keep the portion of the property under lock and key till decree or order of competent Court determining the rights of the properties are obtained. The Petitioner / B Party filed Crl.R.C.No.561/2021, which is pending before this Court. In the meanwhile, the 3^rd respondent obtained an order for correction of extent in the above said land vide No.No.639/Sett/KKL/Sec.23/2022, dated 16.12.2022 issued by the Settlement Officer, Karaikal, wherein it is recorded that missing extent of 00-10-75 H.A.Ca available on the ground as per the survey report shall be added with the existing extent of 00.42.82 Ha Ca for the property comprised in R.S.No.48/3A/1/A, No.21 of Tirunallar Revenue Village. Accordingly, 00.53.57 H.A.Ca has been fixed in R.S.No.48/3A/1A. Hence, the 1^st Respondent finding that the Revenue Records have been corrected and the excess extent of land of 00.10.75 H.A.Ca has been incorporated in the Patta No.484, which stands the name of the Janaki Ammal, the 3^rd Respondent / A Party's grandmother. In view of the above, the 3^rd respondent had sought for revocation of the attachment order.

4. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the 2^nd respondent filed a Report dated 24.01.2024 informing that there is no law and order issue that has been prevailing since the time of attachment order, which was issued by the