K SELVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, preferred under Sec.482, Crl.P.C invoking the inherent powers this Court, the prayer is to call for the records in M.C.No.3 of 1989 which culminated in order dated 8th July, 1989, signed by the 4th respondent, the Executive I Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Offi-cer, Dharapuram on 10.7.1989 and the amended order in same miscellaneous case dated 8.7.1989 and signed on 11.7.1989 and quash the proceedings therein, initiated under Sec.145, Crl.P.C.

(2.) THE petitioner and the 3rd respondent are brothers, the petitioner being the elder. father Karuppasamy Gounder died on 15.1.1965. THE family owned considerable landed property and during the life time of Karuppasamy Gounder, there was a partition, by means of a Registered Partition Deed, dated 30.11.1959, whereby Schedule B properties which the subject matter of the present dispute, were allotted to the petitioner. THE respondent was born subsequent to the partition. THE 3rd respondent filed a suit partition in O.S.No.87 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Dharapuram. THE 3rd respondent had made the authorised officer also a party to the suit. He has stated therein that he was his mother " s womb on the date of the registered partition made on 30.11.1959 and therefore in law, he was entitled to a specific share. THE petitioner was shown as the 1st defendant the suit He claims to have remained ex-pane, in pursuance of an arrangement arrived between the members of the family, leaving the Authorised Officer alone, as the contesting defendant. This arrangement was made to obviate the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act, since the petitioner owned lands in excess of the ceiling limit under the Tamil Nadu Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act and the Authorised Officer had initiated recovery proceedings. O.S.No.87 of 1982 was decreed, on 18.8.1982. THE 3rd respondent allotted a 5/12th share in the property. However, the 3rd respondent chose to prefer A.S.No.887 of 1982 before this Court against the preliminary decree. On 18.1.1989, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Before withdrawal of AS.No.887 of 1982, the petitioner preferred I.A.No.450 of 1989 in O.S.No.87 of 1982, to set aside the ex-parte preliminary decree. Final decree proceedings are pending in I.A.No.466 of 1989. THE 3rd respondent also filed LANo.467 of 1989 for interim injunction and I.A.No.468 of -1989 for appointment of a receiver. While these petitions were pending, the impugned order under Sec.145(1), Crl.P.C, was passed by the Executive Magistrate on 8.7.1989, though stated to be signed a different date.

(3.) PADMINI Jesudurai, J. disposed of Crl.M.P. No.l8118of 1990 preferred by respondent in<AT>Crl.M.P.No.8993 of 1989</AT>, by an order dated 6th March, 1991. The Judge observed as follows: " A receiver has already been appointed by the Executive I Class Magistrate and Divisional Officer, Dharapuram (5th respondent) to manage the properties, pending of Sec. 145, Crl.P.C., proceedings. It is stated by both the sides that the Receiver already harvested the previous crop, after his appointment as Receiver. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent (Petitioner in<AT>Crl.M.P.No.8993 of 1989</AT>), petitioner (Vijayakumar) has yet to establish his status as a cultivating tenant and his to be in possession of the property as a tenant under the petitioner. While so, this under Sec.482, Crl.P.C., cannot go into this disputed question. Since the Receiver already taken possession of the properties, and has harvested the previous crops, deposited the sale proceeds in Court, it is but proper that the same arrangement continue till the main proceedings under Sec.145, Crl.P.C. are concluded. Under circumstances no permission can be granted to the present petitioner to harvest the The Receiver Tahsildar shall harvest the standing crops and deposit the sale proceeds Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. "