DURAIKANNU Vs. PAVADAI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case is directed against an order passed by theTaluk Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Ulundurpet. THIS order has been passedupon a petition filed by the respondents herein before the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Thirukkoilur, who has referred the matter to the said Taluk ExecutiveMagistrate, Ulundurpet. The petition has been filed under Sec.144, Crl.P.C., andthe petitioners have prayed for an order under that section. But the orderpassed is to the effect of an order passed under Scc.145, Crl.P.C.

(2.) IT is now contended that such an order is illegal and cannot at allbe maintained. On going through the petition filed by the respondents hereinbefore the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is seen that very clearly andspecifically they wanted an order under Sec. 144, Crl.P.C. But as rightly statedby the learned counsel for revision petitioners herein, the order passed by theTaluk Executive Magistrate is to the effect of an order passed under Sec. 145,Crl.P.C. Under Sec.145, Crl.P.C, the Magistrate first has to pass a preliminaryorder stating the grounds of his being satisfied from a report of a policeofficer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of thepeace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof within hislocal jurisdiction and requiring the parlies concerned in such dispute to attendhis court in person or by pleader on a specific date and time and to put inwritten statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actualpossession of the subject of dispute. But in this case no such order has beenpassed. Therefore, clearly the order passed by the learned Magistrate isillegal. For these reasons the order of the learned Magistrate cannot besustained and hence it is set aside. The criminal revision case is allowed.