RAMACHANDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order d| 13-12-1977 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Sagar Taluk, Sagar, in C. Mis. Case NO.2 1977-78, under Section 145 CrlPC holding that respondent No.2, Party No.2, was in possession of the property in dispute, namely, Survey No.38 of Hosahalli Village, on the date of the preliminary order namely 15-11-1977 and that he is entitled to harvest the standing crop and also that he is entitled to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the Sub-Inspector of police, Rural Police Station, Sagar, filed a report, d 19-8-1977, to the Executive Magistrate, Sagar Taluk, Sagar, requesting that action under Sec.145 Cr.PC be taken in regard to the said land. The learned Magistrate issued a preliminary order on 15-11-1977 calling upon the parties to appear before him on 24-11-1977 to put in written statements of their respective claims as to the fact of actual possetision of the subject-matter in dispute. Both the parties were present on 24-11-1977. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 8-12-1977 for evidence. On 8-12-1977, both the parties were absent. He, therefore, directed issue of fresh notices calling upon the parties to be present before him on 19-12-1977, But, by 9-12-1977, the second party filed an application before the learned Magistrate praying that emergent order be issued in regard to the harvesting of the crop as the crop on the land was ready for harvesting. The learned Magistrate directed issue of emergent notices to the parties to appear before him on, 13-12-1977 for the purpose of enquiry in the case. On 13-12-1977, both the parties appeared. No written statement were filed. The petitioner first party, produced one ' Patta' Book and two receipts for having paid land revenue. The second party produced receipts for having paid land revenue, Grain Vouchers for having paid the levy paddy, Pahani extracts for the years 1977-78, Fertiliser Card for having secured grant of fertiliser to him by the Agricultural Department in regard to the land and an application addressed, by him to the Village Accountant for writing a Pahani in his name and affidavits of Shankaranarayana Rao and Hutchamma, who were said to be the cultivators of the adjacent lands. The learned Magistrate received this material on record and then proceeded to pass the impugned order.

(3.) In the impugned, order, the learned Magistrate has reasoned that it was clear to him that the father of Party No.2 had been paying land revenue as a cultivator since 1938 ; that the pahani for the current year was also in favour of the father of Party No.2 ; that the pahanies for the previous years also indicated that the father of Party No.2 had, cultivated the land ; that Party No.2 was paying the levy paddy and he had been granted the fertiller by the Agricultural Department in regard to the said land that the patta of Party No. 2 disclosed that he was paying land revenue for the land for the year 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 as ' Khatedar' and, lastly, that the affidavits of Shankaranarayana Rao and Hutchamma also were in support of his possession and enjoyment. It is only on this reasoning that he has held in favour of Party No.2. He has nowhere adverted to the two documents produced by the first party.