Dismissed

Raja Rajeshwara Fist Farmers Mutually Aided Co-operative v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue

Telangana HC23 Jul 2010CRLP/4983/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal petition challenging a Magistrate’s order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. that restrained public entry into a tank dug in government land. The court held the land remains government property, the society has no exclusive rights or license to fish there, and the order was valid to protect public property.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filed by the petitioner society was dismissed.

Raja Rajeshwara Fist Farmers Mutually Aided… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4983 OF 2008

¶3

DATE:23.07.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Raja Rajeshwara Fish Farmers Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited, Peddarathupalli village of Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶6

…… Petitioner.

¶7

And:

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli and 3 others

¶9

…..Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4983 OF 2008

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

1. The petitioner/Raja Rajeshwara Fish Farmers Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited, Peddarathupalli village of Srirampur Mandal questions order No.B2/3534/2007 dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Subject-matter of dispute is a tank dug in Ac.58.15 cents of Government land in S.No.100 of Peddarathupalli village. The Magistrate promulgated order under Section 145 Cr.P.C in respect of that land restraining public from entering into the said land. The said order was passed when it is brought to notice of the Magistrate by Chethi Dharmaiah who is the President of Mattelavagula Raja Rajeshwara Fish Farmers Mutually Aided Co-operative Society to the effect that a

¶13

private tank was dug in Government land.

¶14

2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the said tank was dug by the petitioner-society for the purpose of rearing fish therein. There is no dispute that the land in which the tank was dug is a Government land and not a private land. It is also brought to notice of this Court that as per proceedings of the Collector and Executive Chairman, DRDA, Karimnagar dated 17.05.2005, the Collector sanctioned Rs.5,00,000/- as Cash Component under RSVY scheme and Rs.2,00,000/- as Rice Component under SGRY (SC) scheme, totalling Rs.7,00,000/- for completion of the tank. It is also not disputed that the Collector inaugurated the said tank. When the tank was dug in Government land with Government funds, the said tank will not become private tank much less belonging to the petitioner-society. Any tank or water source located within limits of any Gram Panchayat, will vest in the Gram Panchayat. In any other case, it vests in the Government. There is no order either by Gram Panchayat or from Fisheries Department of the Government granting right to catch fish in favour of the petitioner-society. Simply because members of the petitionersociety started digging the tank and might have contributed some physical labour for the same, it will not clothe the petitioner-society with any rights in that tank.

¶15

3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there was no need for the Magistrate to pass the impugned order under Section 145 Cr.P.C because there was no dispute existing in respect of the tank in question. The claim made by Chethi Dharmaiah as President of the petitioner-society before the Magistrate as if it was a private tank, itself constitutes dispute regarding the tank in question. Breach of peace contemplated under Section 145 Cr.P.C is not one which occurred previously but which may occur in future because of the dispute. Therefore, the Magistrate is justified and action of the Magistrate is in

¶16

accordance with law, in the Magistrate promulgating the impugned order under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

¶17

4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that when the petitionersociety is in possession of the tank in question, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed by passing the impugned order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioner-society was never in possession of the tank. Sporadic activity of catching fish in the tank will not clothe the petitioner-society with possession of the tank much less dispossession of the Government of their land. It is for the Government or the Gram Panchayat as the case may be to auction right of rearing and catching fish in the tank in question, in which event, the petitioner will be at liberty to compete for obtaining licence from the competent authority for rearing and catching fish in the tank in question. Till now, the petitioner-society has no right to catch fish in this tank. No such right is conferred on them by any of the authorities.

¶18

5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that on the intervention of some political leaders, the Magistrate has promulgated the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. This contention has to be viewed from another angle also. It may be, at the instance of some political personnel, the petitioner-society wanted to grab Government land measuring Ac.58.15 cents in S.No.100 of this village. This is a new method of grabbing Government land under the guise of forming a registered society and enjoying yield from the Government land under the cover of one litigation or the other. It is stated that after obtaining interim suspension of the impugned order, members of the petitionersociety are enjoying right to catch fish in the tank in question. This Court is of the opinion that the members of the petitioner-society are liable to pay necessary licence fees even for the past period when they have reared and caught fish from the tank to the appropriate authorities. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner-society has no right to question the

¶19

impugned order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C which was promulgated with a view to protect Government property from being grabbed by unauthorised persons.

¶20

6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶21

__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J.

¶22

Date:23.07.2010. Gk.

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4983 OF 2008

¶25

Date:23.07.2010

¶26

Gk.

Raja Rajeshwara Fist Farmers Mutually Aided Co-operative v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Rajeshwara Fist Farmers Mutually Aided Co-operative v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Yathi Raju, Vs State of A.P.

Vallepu Dasu Vs Naidu Mallaiah

V.Viswamanatha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koneti Viswanatham, Vs Chenji Nagamma , Revathi

K.Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs Smt. K.v.Lakshmi Kameswari