PAKKIAMMAL Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the maintenance of public order is the paramount consideration and not the entitlement and title of the party to the disputed property, whether the order of the Executive Magistrate declaring the title of the party to the property and not dealing with actual physical possession is valid, is the issue to be considered. The parties described as 'B party' (2 to 6) have filed the Criminal Revision in Crl. R.C. No. 139 of 2011, and the party described as 'C party' (in the impugned order) has filed the Criminal Revision in Crl. R.C. No. 257 of 2011, challenging the common order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pollachi, in M.C. No. 22A of 2010, dated 13.12.2010, holding (a) 'B and C parties' have no right to claim any right over the petition mentioned property; (b) if there had been any shed put up by anybody, excepting Shizar Ahamed, Yunis Saleem, Siraj Ahamed ('A party' 1 to 3) (respondents 2 to 4 in Crl. R.C. No. 257 of 2011), it has to be removed by the police authorities.

(2.) Brief facts:

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (C party) is that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is liable to be set-aside, as the Revenue Divisional Officer has no authority to decide the title to the property and the order passed declaring the title of 'A party' over the disputed property is without jurisdiction.