SHANKARLAL Vs. ALHAZ KHAJA ABDUL HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions filed u/S.397 read with S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the two orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raichur-one u/ S.145(1), Cr. P.C. and the other u/S. 146(1), Cr. P.C. and the other u/S. 146(1), Cr. P.C.

(2.) At the time of hearing Sri Suresh S. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions requested that he may kindly be permitted to convert both the petitions as Criminal Petitions as filed u/S. 482. Cr. P.C. The learned Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and also Sri G. S. Visveswara learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent did not object for such a request. Hence' the request was allowed and the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions is permitted to convert the petitions as Criminal Petitions. Accordingly, the matters were heard.

(3.) Before deciding the validity or other wise of the two orders under challenge in these two petitions, it is necessary to state a few facts which necessiated the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate the proceedings and pass impugned orders. According to the Magistrate, there is a vacant site measuring 104' x 102' located on the Railway Station road adjoining Hanuman Temple and just behind the Buraniya Masjid at Raichur City. Both these institutions belong to people of different faith. Each of these institutions claim that the site in question belongs to them. A dispute in respect of the property gave birth to certain proceedings before Criminal Court and other authorities either between these two institutions or persons claiming under them. One such dispute is relating to the permission granted by the Municipality to Buraniya Masjid to proceed with the construction. The same was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner by the petitioner, who is the president of Hanuman Temple Trust, and it ended in its dismissal with an observation that the dispute between the parties is purely a disputed question of fact coupled with title to the property and the same may be agitated before the Civil Court and not before him. The said order came to be passed on 19-6-1990. These facts have been taken from the facts mentioned in W.P. No.15051/90 filed by the petitioner therein making the other parties including the Masjid as respondents challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, which has been just now disposed of by me holding that the dispute has to be agitated and settled before the Civil Court and not before the authorities concerned.