MOIDUPPA Vs. TAHSILDAR PERINTHALMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to bring up the records relating to an order passed by the Tahsildar under S.7-A (2) of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 declaring possession in favour of the second respondent, who was the applicant under S.7-A, before him. The Tahsildar deputed the Revenue Inspector to make a preliminary investigation and upon his furnishing the materials collected, posted the case for enquiry before him and ordered notice to issue to the petitioners upon the application. The petitioners entered appearance and filed a counter on April 8, 1959. Thereafter the enquiry was posted on different dates, but had to be adjourned on account of the inconvenience of the Tahsildar. Finally, the enquiry was posted before him on June 17, 1959. From the diary of the proceedings in the file, it is seen, that the applicant, the second respondent, alone attended the enquiry and none of the petitioners turned up. The case was called thrice at 11 a. m. and at 2 p. m. as the diary discloses, and the order now impugned was passed by him.

(2.) The petitioners first complaint in this petition is, that no notice had gone to them concerning the investigation made by the Revenue Inspector. This was not part of the enquiry contemplated by S.7-A of the Act. As in M/s. Allan Harry and Co. Private Ltd. v. Vivian Bose, AIR 1960 Punjab 86 at page 94, what the Revenue Inspector did was only to collect materials upon which the enquiry had to be made and he recorded certain statements. It was upon this, that notice was issued and if the petitioners wanted to challenge the truth or the correctness of the materials placed by the Revenue Inspector, they could have done so, if necessary, by requesting the Tahsildar to allow the cross examination of the persons from whom statements had been recorded by the Revenue Inspector and to examine his witnesses. No such step was taken. They were absent on the last date of hearing. It is stated in their affidavit, that they turned up before the Tahsildar at 3 p. m. when they were told, that orders had been passed. This shows at any rate, that they were aware of the posting of the enquiry on the date. The only question is, whether the enquiry was posted at 8 p. m. as stated in the affidavit. Though, on a perusal of the diary, I find that on certain dates the enquiry was posted to specific hours of the day, no time was fixed for the posting on the 17th June. In fact there is every indication to the contrary, in the note made in the diary, that the parties were called at 11 a. m. and at 2 p. m. I am not prepared to act upon this allegation of the petitioners and I hold that this court cannot interfere under Art.226.

(3.) It is also seen, that the petitioners had instituted a civil suit and launched a criminal case against the second respondent, in both of which, the issue as to possession will arise. The impugned order itself is liable to be superseded by the decision of a civil court. The petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.