Dismissed

Dunna Sudhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Sept 2014CRLRC/1896/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding a land dispute. The court held that the subordinate magistrate correctly distinguished between title and possession, finding the respondents had prior possession rights to 4-30 cents while the petitioner retained possession of the remaining balance.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is dismissed as there is no scope for the revision court to interfere in the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate regarding possession.

Dunna Sudhakar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1896 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C by the petitioner, having been aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet in proceedings No.E/7481/2012.

¶4

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Suryapet by his proceedings No. E/7481 of 2012, dated 28.08.2013 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. from the report/ letter of the Sub Inspector of Police Nandigudem, dated 07.09.2012 and of Tahasildar, Nandigudem, letter dated 07.11.2012, passed the order for release of Ac.4-30 cents including agricultural well in favour of Gundlapalli Ranga Rao and Gundala Damanna out of the patta land of their vendor from the first sale to them, the remaining land in favour of Dunna Sudhakar ( for the remaining land though the patta shows for Ac.5-00 cents, on field available Ac.4-79 cents only, and in sale deed patta is shown for Ac.0.70 cents) after demarcating the boundary on ground within 15 days from the date of order directing the Tahasildar and the Station House Officer, Nadigudem to ensure that no procedure should trespass into the other’s land per the said boundaries fixed by Tahasildar and to be dealt with suitably if violates.

¶5

3.The contention in the grounds of revision impugning the said detailed order running into 10 paras with the above operative portion, are that the petitioner purchased Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No.249/1/7 of Nandigudem village and mandal from the original owner Mallavarapu Rayanna under registered sale deed No.4230 of 2012 and the name of the revision petitioner Dunna Sudhakar was even mutated and pattadar passbook issued in revenue records by proceedings of the Tahasildar dated 21.08.2012 Nandigudem Mandal and he is cultivating by raising paddy therein, whereas the respondents 2 and 3 to the revision petition by

¶6

names Gudlapalli Ranga Rao and Gundala Danamma were trying to trespass into the land for which he filed police report covered by Cr.No.56 of 2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427,323,506 I.P.C. and Section 31(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and as a counterblast to it, the respondents supra lodged a report against the revision petitioner as if he removed their pumpset that was registered as Cr.No.58 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 447,427 and 379 of I.P.C. and on the very report of the police(SHO, Nandigudem), the Sub Divisional Magistrate initiated Section 145 proceedings and taken properties of both sides under cover of panchanama dated 09.01.2013 and issued notices for appearance herein on 16.02.2013 and the case was being adjourned from time to time by sending notices through Tahasildar or police intimating next hearings and the last notice received was on 18.05.2013 on which day he was informed that the next date of hearing would be intimated to him but while waiting for intimation, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned orders by arriving an erroneous conclusion as if the entire land is only Ac.4-79 cents and the patta is shown for Ac.5-00 cents and as if respondents 2 and 3 supra entitled to Ac.4-30 cents and the revision petitioner is entitled to actual remaining land only Ac.0.49 cents in stead of Ac.0.70 cents and the petitioner was not even served with any documents relied on by the respondents 2 and 3 supra or by police or Tahasildar in passing the order by itself as such the impugned order is illegal and beyond jurisdiction vested, vitiated by principles of natural justice, outcome without affording opportunity and non-compliance of documents, not considering the survey reports and reports of police and Tahasildar, to enable the petitioner to contest effectively by ignoring even Ac.0.70cents taken possession under cover of panchanama held that the petitioner is in possession of only Ac.0.49 cents and it is not the matter to decide title or an adjudication of rights to continue the possession of property and in ignorance of the possession of the revision petitioner of Ac.0-70cents with entitlement the

¶7

impugned orders were passed, hence to set aside the same.

¶8

4. Whereas, the revision-respondents 2 and 3 filed counter with enclosures in opposing said contentions of the revision petitioner and for substantiating order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate saying that the original owner Mallavarapu Rayanna and his son Sunil Kumar were pattadars in Sy.No.241/1/7 of Nandigudem village as per revenue records with its total extent of Ac.5-00 but in physical possession only Ac.4-79 cents including as per survey and demarcation conducted already by Deputy Inspector of Survey and out of it, they sold Ac.4-30 cents to respondents 2 and 3 under registered sale deed No.2980 dated 23.04.2012 including the agricultural well existing thereunder with the boundaries referred therein and delivered possession after which there remained only Ac.0.49cents of land though Ac.0.70cents as per record and their vendors executed registered sale deed to the revision petitioner under document No.4230/dated 25.08.2012 which is subsequent to the sale deed obtained by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the revision, only after the left over holding within the boundaries to say for which Ac.0.49cents of land though Ac.0.70 cents as per record, for nothing in his possession to deliver beyond Ac.0.49 cents, even sale deed shows Ac.0.70cents and started interfering with the possession of the respondents 2 and 3 of their land of Ac.4-30 cents and he also made an attempt on the life of 2^nd respondent and her son by running over with tractor who could escape and the police registered Cr.No.35 of 2012 under Sections 304, 307,323 read with 109 of Cr.P.C. which is pending in the Court of Sessions and the police also registered Cr.No.58 of 2012 against the revision petitioner alleging he interfered with the possession of respondents 2 and 3 and cut down teak trees and taken away electrical pumpset and there was attachment order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Suryapet of the subject land in Sy.No.249/1/7 held by the respondents 2 and 3 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. to avert the law and order problem from the reports

¶9

of the Tahasildar and police and thereafter notices issued for appearance regarding the possession of the subject land as on the date of attachment order and the case was heard for more than ten times and the revision petitioner did not file any evidence and ultimately the orders impugned herein were passed which is sustainable and merely because sale deed stands for Ac.0.70cents in favour of the revision petitioner, he cannot claim for nothing to deliver possession by his vendor in his favour after what is remained from sale of Ac.4-30 cents and delivery of possession to the revision respondents 2 and 3. Hence to dismiss the revision.

¶10

5. The learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents advanced the arguments in support of the revision respondents 2 and 3 in supporting the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate.

¶11

6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶12

7. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.08.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet in proceedings No.E/7481/2012 is unsustainable, if so, with what observations?

¶13

2. To what result?

¶14

Point No.1:

¶15

8. Before coming to the scope of Section 145 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot forget the scope of revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. while sitting against the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, whether there is any incorrectness, illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings or observations of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. From this now coming to section 145(3) of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:-

¶16

A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or

¶17

near the subject of dispute.

¶18

As per Section 145(3) supra, the order copy of the Executive Magistrate along with summons to be served on the parties besides affixture of copy at some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute. As per Sub Section (4) of Section 145 of Cr.P.C. the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claim of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear, the parties, receive the evidence produced, taken such further evidence if any as he thinks necessary for the purpose of deciding whether any and which of the parties was as on the date of the order made by him under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. in possession of the subject of dispute; and as per the proviso to Section 145(4) if any person dispossessed wrongfully within two months commenced before the date of which report of the police officer or other information received or after the date and before the date of his order, he may treat the party dispossessed as if the party has been in possession as on the date of the order under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:-

¶19

Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.

¶20

9. Here, undisputedly, notices were served on the parties. The revision petitioner ought to have filed his written objections along with documents and he did not file but for saying he was simply attending as and when the date intimated to him though it is a summary procedure. Here, the crux is who was in possession of which extent as on the date of order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) in

¶21

attaching or become custodial legis of the total extent in dispute thereunder if not since two months prior to that order. The revision petitioner says in the year 2012, the pattadar passbook was issued in his favour for Ac.0.70 cents covered by sale deed dated 25.08.2012 obtained from the original vendor M.Rayanna on 21.08.2012 by proceedings of Tahasildar under B/3286/2012 out of total extent of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No. 249/1/7 of Nadigudem village and Mandal, which speaks even 4 days prior to the obtaining of registered sale deed, a pattadar passbook claimed and obtained by him. In fact even to say by the time of the alleged pattadar passbook obtained by him on 21.08.2012, what the vendor of the revision petitioner was in possession is the remaining out of his total extent, after sale of Ac.4-30 cents in favour of the revision respondents 2 and 3. The sale deed recitals when clearly speaks sale and delivery of possession of Ac.4-30 cents under the sale deeds and the vendor of the respondents as well as the petitioner issued a letter, dated 23.10.2012 addressed to the Tahasildar Nadigudem saying after what he sold in favour of the respondents under registered sale deed dated 23.04.2012 of A.4-30 cents out of his total extent and delivered possession, which extent remained in his possession only delivered to the revision petitioner and he obtained the sale deed without actual measurement from the patta for Ac.5-00 cents stands in his name for the balance which is the sale deed dated 25.08.2012 and it is referred in his affidavit that though the total extent is Ac.5-00 cents as per records what he sold and delivered possession after cause measurement to the respondents is Ac.4-30 cents and sold the remaining only to the revision-petitioner. Then it clearly speaks the respondents 2 and 3 in possession of Ac.4-30 cents as per their sale deed which is first in point of time and it is not even the case of the revision petitioner that subsequently for any reason he entered into possession of any extent out of Ac.4-30 cents of the respondents much less two months prior to the initiation of the said proceedings and basing of the said order by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) of

¶22

Cr.P.C. in attaching and taking possession of both for custodial legis, the contention that he is in possession of the Ac.0.70 cents only based on the alleged pattadar said to have been obtained that does not sustain much less to impugn the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Thus, for this Court sitting in revision against it either to modify or to set aside, there is nothing but for to say, none of the observations will take away the right of the parties on either side but for confining to the possession; as prima facie the respondents possession is for Ac.4-30 cents out of total extent i.e. first in point of time for the vendor common to both and for the remaining that is sold and delivered by said common vendor to the revision petitioner by kept it in his possession. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. Point No.2:

¶23

10.Accordingly and in the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as for this Court while sitting in revision against the impugned order there is nothing to interfere; but for to say rights of the parties to be vindicated in a civil dispute will no way influence by this order but for to decide on own merits including for any right to apply demarcation of boundary line of the said total extent and sub division of the Ac.4-30 cents afresh to claim the remaining by the revision proceedings of the parties on so applying. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision, shall stand closed.

¶24

___________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, Date: 20.09.2014. B/o vvr

Dunna Sudhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dunna Sudhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

K. Chandra Kala Vs The State of Telangana

Rayapureddy Jayaramireddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Khader, Vs The STate of Telangana (through SHO Dharur)

Ramanadham Audinarayana Vs State of Andhra PRadesh

M. Velu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Layaq S/o. Liayqath Ali, Vs The State of Telangana