14.By orders dated 04.05.2012 and 17.05.2012, the RDO once again initiated Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings and took possession of the property from memorial club and lions club and as on the date of order (i.e.) on 03.09.2012 passed by this Court in Crl.OP.Nos.14099 and 14100 of 2012, the Tahsildar, Paramathy Vellore has been in the custody of the property and the same state of affairs continued during the course of fresh enquiry by RDO and on the date of passing impugned order on 31.12.2012. In other words, the actual persons in the occupation prior to the orders dated 04.05.2012 and 17.05.2012 were memorial club and his lessee i.e. Lions Club, as such, the persons dispossessed by virtue of the orders dated 04.05.2012 and 17.05.2012 were memorial club and its lessee lions club. This Court, in its order dated 03.09.2012, while setting aside the order dated 04.05.2012 and 17.05.2012, remanded the matter for fresh enquiry to fix up the aggressors i.e. to fix up the trespassers. In other words, the person who forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed any other person who had been in actual possession of the property. However, the respondent/RDO has by erroneously interpreting the expression aggressor as that of the persons in the occupation without any right to do so, proceeded to go into the right of the parties on merits and arrived at a conclusion that the property belong to memorial committee and memorial club was no longer in existence and the memorial club was unregistered one and was in possession of the property without any right to do so and the lions club, who was lessee under the memorial club also had no right to be in the occupation of the property and are hence aggressors. The RDO also arrived at another conclusion that the property has been in possession of this memorial committee. Both the findings are in my considered view outside the scope of enquiry in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC and are contrary to material available.
