N A NARASIMHIAH Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition undep Art. 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution the petitioners who are the owners of the lands bearing R.S.Nos 280, 326 and 327 of Kesare village, Mysore Taluk have challenged the validity of the order dated 3.2.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mysore, in Case No. 3149|74-75 directing the appointment of the Secretary of the Tribunal as receiver in respect of the lands in question and to take over the standing crop, and to dispose it of in the best possible way and credit the, proceeds in the office of the Tahsildar. The Police have also been instructed to give necessary assistance to the receiver and it has been further ordered that this arrangement would, continue until further orders.

(2.) The contention of Sri Papanna, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that there was no application filed by the respondent No. 1 under S. 48C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and as such the, Tribunal could not haye passed, the order in question. It was also further contended that the Sub-Inspector of Police had no jurisdiction to make a report to the Tribunal and the Tribunal could not have acted on the; report made by the Sub-inspector and the order under question has been passed only on the basis of the .report made by the Sub-inspector of police without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without even issuing any notice to them. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order in question has been signed only by the. Chairman. On the contrary, Sri Kadidal Manjappa,, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the order was passed by the Chairman and two, other members, who have also signed the order. It was also further submitted that in view of the filing of the application in Form No. 7 the Tribunal was competent to, pass an order of the nature in question. Therefore it was submitted that as to whether there was an application under Sec. 48C of the. Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or not is not of any material consequence,.

(3.) In the instant case it is not necessary to examine, the correctness of the contention that the order passed by the Tribunal was signed by the, Chairman alone or not and further it is also not necessary to find out as to whether an application under Sec. 48C of the Act was filed, by the 1st respondent or not. From the reading of the order of the, Tribunal it is clear that it has acted only on the basis of the report made by the. Subinspector of Police in C.C.No. 8|79 dated 19-1-1979 stating that he has registeired a case for the, offences punishable under Sections ,447 and 37-9 IPC and that there is likelihood of clash between the parties resulting in the breach of pea.ce. Further the sub-inspector by the said report also sought for the instructions from Tribunal for the action to be taken in, the matter. It may be pointed out here that there is no provision contained in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder to enable the SubInspector to make any such report to the Tribunal and to seek instructions in the matter. If there, was any apprehension of breach of peace the bub-inspector of Police ought to have taken recourse to initiate proceedings under Section 145 or 107 of the Code, of Criminal Procedure, Instead of adopting the, mode available under the Criminal Procedure Code the Subinspector of Police, Mysore has made the report to the Tribunal and has further sought for instructions from the Tribunal and the Tribunal has acted on the; said report which was not, permissible in law. This is a case, in which the Sub-inspector has failed to discharge, his duty in accordance, with law, in not taking action in accordance with the provisions of the. Cr.P.C., in ma,king a, report to, the Tribunal and seeking instructions from the, Tribunal which had, nothing to do with the maintenance of peace and tranquillity and prevention of breach, of peace. Similarly the, Tribunal also acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order only on the basis of the report of the Sub-inspector without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. In this view of the matter the order of the Tribunal which is passed on the basis of the, report made by the Sub-inspector cannot be allowed, to stand. The report o,f the Sub-inspector could not have been looked into by the Tribunal. If that report is removed from the records there was no material for the Tribunal to pass the order impugned. Further the petitioners were not notified and no opportunity was given to them. Therefore the, order passed by the Tribunal cannot at all be sustained, and it is accordingly quashed. However it is made clear that it is open to the Tribunal to consider the application for interim relief if any, made by the parties, according to law and after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing them.