E. THYAGARAJAN Vs. RAVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order passed by the Taluk Executive Magistrate -cum -Tahsildar at Uthiramerur, in a proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. in Pa.Mu.No. 4272/2013/A1, dated 18.02.2015.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the old gramanatham S.No. 21/2 corresponding to New S.No. 194 in No. 15, Sethupattu Village is a Gramanatham house site area. In the said Gramanatham land, the house site with a cattle shed comprised in present Gramanatham S.No. 194/7 - 0.04 cents corresponding to Old S.No. 21/2 part Gramanatham absolutely belonged to the petitioner's father Ekambara Gounder by virtue of his purchase of 0.02 cents under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1956 vide Doc.No. 641/1956 from Velu Naicker and another 0.02 cents under registered sale deed dated 27.01.1959 vide Doc.No. 122/1959 from Ranganathan, both on the file of the Sub -Registrar, Uthiramerur and ever since, his father was in exclusive possession and after his death, the petitioner, who is the son, is in continuous and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property by using it as a part of his residence and a cattle shed. While so, on 28.12.2013, while the Special Sub -Inspector of Police was engaged in patrol, he saw that there was a quarrel going on between the petitioner and others, thereby, they were causing hindrance to public peace and hence, he had registered a case in Crime No. 106/2013 on the file of G -11, Peru Nagar Police Station, dated 28.12.2013 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. alleging that there is a likelihood of breach of peace. After receipt of summons from the Tahsildar, Uthiramerur, the petitioner has filed his objections dated 22.01.2015. Alleging that the Tahsildar without report from the police has initiated proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and without any authority, he has passed orders thereon, this Criminal Revision Case is filed.

(3.) MR .V.Arul, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the fourth respondent would fairly state that the Tahsildar has got no power and it is only the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has got power to pass the impugned order. He would further submit that the report was forwarded only to the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, the impugned order is wrong and it has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer.