(1.) PETITIONERS/"A" party in M.C.No.23 of 2000 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry have preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders dated 4.10.2000.
(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE Station House Officer, Lawspet Police Station, laid information before the Sub Divisional Magistrate at Pondicherry. He perused the records placed before him and he was satisfied that the dispute was likely to cause breach of peace between A party and B party concerning the right and possession of schedule mentioned property. It was likely to cause imminent breach of peace at Lawspet Police Station Limit. THEy were duly called upon to state their claims as to the fact of the actual possession of the disputed property. THE case was taken on record on 13.3.2000. Ample opportunities were given to all the parties to adduce evidence and file documents. "A" party claimed that they are the absolute owners and enjoyers of the property. THE disputed property was originally an agricultural land and in course of time, the cultivation was not possible due to lack of irrigation. Now, the "B" party attempted to trespass into the disputed area for the purpose of putting up construction.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the "A" party contended that the learned Magistrate had passed a preliminary order under Sec.145(1) of Criminal Procedure Code without being satisfied about the existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace. He had not set out the grounds which formed the basis for his satisfaction. He erred in going into the merits of the dispute and the report of the Tahsildar has been relied upon and the same was not given to the parties concerned and no opportunity was also given to cross examine the Tahsildar. The learned Magistrate ought not to have relied upon the report of the Tahsildar before furnishing a copy of the same and as such, the order is liable to be set aside.