Dismissed

Pastor.K.Samuvel M/a 55 Yrs, v. the Sub Divisional

Madras HC24 Jul 2017CRL RC/901/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against an order under Section 145 CrPC restricting construction on government land to maintain law and order. Court held magistrate's order valid as it aimed at peace regarding building conversion, not new construction, and possession disputes belong to civil court.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC was maintained and the revision was disposed of.

Pastor.K.Samuvel M/a 55 Yrs, Vs the Sub… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.07.2017

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

CRL. REVISION CASE No.901 of 2017

¶7

Pastor K.Samuvel ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate & The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi Zone, Kallakurichi, Villupuram. 2. THe Tahsildar Sankarapuram Taluk, Sankarapuram, Villupuram Disrict. 3. The Village Administrative Officer, Vanapuram Village, Vanapuram, Pangandai Kootu Road, Ariyalur P.O. 605 801. Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. 4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pagandai Kootu Road Police Station, Ariyalur P.O. 605 801. Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and set aside order passed by the 1st respondent in A3/3929/2017 dated 23.06.2017.

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

2 For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Sekar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the order passed by the first respondent, Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ''the code'') dated 23.06.2017.

¶13

The facts which led to the present issue is that according to the Revenue Department, property at Survey No.108/1, Vanapuram Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District to the extent of 7.98.5 Hectare is a tank poromboke. The petitioner claims that he had been continuously in possession and enjoyment of the land and he had already put up a thatched building. He wanted to convert the said thatched building into a pacca building, by using bricks and cement. This act of the petitioner was objected to by some individuals of that locality stating that they are occupying other portion of the very same land.

¶14

The third respondent viz., Village Administrative Officer on

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

receipt of the complaint, made an inspection of the place and gave a report to the first respondent. The fourth respondent had also given a report stating that there is likelihood of law and order problem in view of this construction made by petitioner. On going through the report submitted by the respondents 3 and 4, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, wherein he has stated that, in order to maintain law and order in the locality and to maintain peace, both sides namely the petitioner and the local people have been directed not to make any new construction in the tank poromboke land which admittedly belongs to the Government. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed.

¶18

I have heard Mr.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that the land has been classified as a tank poromboke. However, the petitioner had been in possession and occupation of the land for a longer period. In this regard, he had some documents, which, according to him, proves that the petitioner had already been in the disputed site, by putting up temporary building (thatched roof). Since the same has to be converted into a permanent building, bricks and cement were used. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when he was about to put up roof, this

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

was objected not by any local people but only by the concerned Police Inspector. Based on his report and the report of the third respondent, the present impugned order has been passed.

¶22

The learned counsel would further submit that it is not as if

¶23

the petitioner putting up the new construction in vacant poromboke land. There was already a temporary building with thatched roof. It has been in existence for a very long time. The attempt of the petitioner is only to convert the thatched building into a permanent building with using cement and bricks. Therefore, there is absolutely no chance for any law and order problem or disturbing the peace of the locality. The first respondent has not made any personal enquiry. The first respondent should have enquired into the matter thoroughly by summoning both sides before invoking section 145 of the code. The petitioner was denied of an opportunity to put forth his case before the first respondent. The order passed by the first respondent, is therefore bereft of materials and liable to be set-aside.

¶24

Per contra, Mr.R.Sekar, the learned Government Advocate, (Crl. Side) by producing A-Register would submit that, the land in question is shown as tank poromboke in the revenue records. It is illegal to make any kind of construction in the said land. The lands

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

absolutely belong to the government and no one is entitled to make any kind of construction in the said land. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that because of the construction made by the petitioner, there is every chance of law and order problem in the area and the peace and tranquility will be disturbed. If at all, the petitioner wants to establish his right, he should approach the competent civil court.

¶28

I have heard the rival submissions made by both sides.

¶29

Insofar as the legal objection made by the learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioner that under section 145(1) of the Code, before the executive magistrate passes an order, he is required to put on notice the parties concerned about the dispute and to obtain written statement of claims about the actual possession of the subject land of dispute, this court is of the view that the petitioner has not made any

¶31

new construction but he has only altering the existing building, the presence of the petitioner or opposition party is not required before the first respondent. The first respondent has passed the impugned order mainly to maintain the peace and tranquility of the area and to see that law and order situation does not deteriorate.

¶32

In so far as the claim of the petitioner that he has been in

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

¶35

possession and enjoyment of land in question for several years is concerned, it is for the petitioner to prove such possession before the competent civil Court. The issue before this court is only to see as to whether the order passed by the first respondent under section 145 of the code is justifiable or not.

¶36

In fact in the impugned order, the first respondent has clearly stated that only in order to maintain law and order and to maintain peace and tranquility in the locality, he has passed the order directing both parties not to make any construction in the poromboke land, which is admittedly belonging to the Government. Since the construction made by the petitioner is only to convert the existing thatched building into a permanent building, the first respondent has not summoned the parties before him to make their respective submissions.

¶37

Considering the above, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent invoking section 145 of the Code.

¶38

Insofar as the claim of the petitioner that he is not making

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

¶41

any new construction but is only converting existing thatched building into a concrete building is concerned, it is for the petitioner to establish

¶42

his rights before the competent civil court before making any conversion of the building. Till the petitioner gets an order from the competent civil Court, the order passed by the first respondent shall be

¶43

maintained.
13. With these observations, this revision is disposed of.
24.07.2017
rli
To
1. The Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate &
The Revenue Divisional Office,
Kallakurichi Zone,
Kallakurichi, Villupuram.
2. THe Tahsildar
Sankarapuram Taluk,
Sankarapuram, Villupuram Disrict.

¶44

The Village Administrative Officer, Vanapuram Village, Vanapuram, Pangandai Kootu Road, Ariyalur P.O. 605 801. Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶45

R.SURESH KUMAR.J.,

¶46

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶47

¶48

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pagandai Kootu Road Police Station, Ariyalur P.O. 605 801. Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶49

The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras-104.

¶50

Crl.R.C.No.901 of 2017
24.07.2017

¶51

http://www.judis.nic.in

Pastor.K.Samuvel M/a 55 Yrs, v. the Sub Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pastor.K.Samuvel M/a 55 Yrs, v. the Sub Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Palanisamy, M/a 57 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Saravanan, M/a 37 Years, Vs S.Murugesan, M/a 60 Years

D.Jesudoss, M/65 Years Vs the State Represented by

Santhosh @ Santhoshkumar, Vs the First Class Executive

K.Sathappan, M/a 38 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T.G.Gopinathan Vs State Represented by