V LAKSHMIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kolar, reversing the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolar Sub-Division, in the first revision before him and remanding the case under S.145 of the CrlPC 4o the Magistrate to stay proceedings in that case and refer the issue regarding tenancy claimed by one of the parties to the land Tribunal, Kolar for its decision.

(2.) The dispute related to Sy. No.179 and the first member of the first party who is respondent-2 in the present petition, claimed to be a tenant, while the first member of the second party who is petitioner-1 claimed to be the owner of the land. It was stated on behalf of the first party that the first member of that party was a tenant from the last 20 While it was asserted on behalf of the first member of the second party that the disputed land belonged to one Chinnamma and under successive sale deeds from her the land became ultimately vested in him as owner. There was a dispute, according to the police report, between the two parties regarding possession and the said dispute was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate after initiating proceeding under Sec.145 of the CrlPC, issued the preliminay order on 21-2-1975. After enabling the parties to file written statements of their respective claims, he ultimately passed the final order under that Section in favour of the first member of the second party holding him to be the owner entitled to remain in possession. The usual order was made that the first party were not to disturb the possession of the second party and that the first member of the second party was to remain in possession till the question was decided by a competent Civil Court. Being aggrieved of that order passed by the Magistrate in favour of the first member of the second party, the first party came in first revision before the Sessions Judge.

(3.) While the first revision was argued before the learned Sessions Judge, it was pointed out that the tenancy claimed by the first member 'Of the first party was the subject matter of the dispute in a proceeding before the Land Tribunal and that being the position, under S.133(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by Act 27 of 1976, the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under S.145 or to initiate any proceeding in regard thereto. It may however be recalled that the learned Magistrate had also passed the order attaching the property and appointing a receiver. It was further contended before the learned Sessions Judge that the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court was ousted in view of sub-sec(1) of S.133 and if at all any interim order by way of attachment or appointment of a receiver was needed, the same could be passed by the Land Tribunal. This plea prevailed before the learned Sessons Judge and he dismissed the revision on that short ground holding that the case be remanded to the learned Magistrate for staying the proceeding and for referring the issue regarding the tenancy to the Land Tribuna), for its decision as provided for in sub-sec (1) (iii) of S.133. The second party has felt aggrieved of that decision and has peferred the present second revision.