G CHALUVE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners in this revision petition were members of the second party in the proceedings case No. C. Mis. 5/77-78 on the file of the Sub-Divl Magistrate, Tumkur Sub-Divn, Tumkur. They have challenged the correctness of the order dated 5-11-1977 made in the above proceedings by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tumkur, issuing a preliminary order against the members of the first and second party, exercising his jurisdiction under S. 145(1) Cr.PC. 1973, shortly called 'the Code', directing both the parties to appeal before him and to put in such documents or to reduce evidence of such persons in support of their respective claim regarding the possession of certain land measuring 54 acres situated in Channapura village, Kunigal Taluk and also appointing the Tahsildar, Eunigal Taluk to be the receiver of the disputed property.

(2.) It appears that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate took action in the matter on the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunigal that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed in respect of the suit schedule properties between the members of the first and second party as to the posbtssion of those lands. Sri P. R. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners advanced two fold contentions attacking the validity of the impugned order. His first contention is that the impugned order is one made without jurisdiction, as the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory provisions of S.145(1) of the Code. S. 145(1) of the Code reads thus:

(3.) In the light of the above legal position, let me now consider the impugned order. As rightly pointed out by Sri. P. R. SrinivaBan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner the impugned order has complied with the first part of sub-sec(1) of Section 145 of the Code, namely that the Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied from the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kunigal tha,t a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed in respect of the schedule properties which were situated within the local limits of his jurisdiction. However, that order is silent about the grounds on which he was being so satisfied. A mere statement in the impugned order that the Magistrate was satisfied from the police report about the existence of a dispute over the properties which would cause a breach of the peace by itself is not sufficient. To make the Order complete, and effective, he must also state the grounds on which he was so being satisfied. The absence to state the grounds of his being so satisfied, in my view, renders the impugned order invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of sub-sec(1) of Sec. 145 of the Code.