ELUMALAI MISTRY Vs. SERMAKANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the counter petitioners in M.C. No.3 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Trivellore, to quash the proceeding under 5. 145 Cr1. P.C., pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivellore. It is seen from the grounds alleged in the petition and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for, the petitioners that the Magistrate while passing the order under S. 145(1), Cr1. P.C., failed to state the grounds for satisfaction and that he has passed the order without verifying the materials for the said order and as such the order is illegal and liable to be set aside. Further, the lands in dispute are poromboke lands of the Government and they do not belong to the petitioner.

(2.) The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioners herein is that the Magistrate has not written a detailed order after holding an enquiry and setting out the reasons for his satisfaction that the dispute concerning the subject matter of the petition is likely to cause breach of peace. In support of the same, the learned counsel relied on the provisions of S. 145(1), Cr1. P.C., wherein it is stated as follows :- Whenever an executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing stating the grounds of his being 80 satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.T On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Karpaga Vinayagam, submitted that in the instant case the learned Magistrate passed the order on the basis of the report accompanied with the statements of witnesses and other revenue records received from police and also on tile basis of the petition filed by the respondent and after satisfying himself that there is a likelihood of breach of peace between the petitioners and the respondent in respect of the subject matter, namely, the land in question, he passed the order under S. 145(1), Cr. P.C., and that he Is not bound to write a judgment as contended by the petitioners. In the instant case, it is worthwhile to extract the order passed by the learned Magistrate for proper appreciation of the respective contentions of both the parties. T1Whereas it has been made to appear to me by the petitioners that the counter petitioners are threatening to enter upon the lands mentioned below unlawfully and the petitioner apprehends that the counter petitioners are likely to cause breach of peace. And whereas I am satisfied from the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Trivellore Town, that there is a dispute with regard to the lands referred to above in perumbakkam village, situated within the local limits of my jurisdiction which is likely to cause breach of peace. I. Thiru D. Arul Thiagarajan, Sub Divisional Magistrate. Trivellore do hereby require you, the counter petitioner to appear before me in person or by Pleader on 4-7-1986 at 11 a.m. at District Taluk Village S. No. Extent Chengalpattu Tiruvallur Perumbakkam 230 0-02-1.5 of 0.64 And 230.855 sq. ft. out of 0.14 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Office, Trivellore, and file written statement or your claim as to the tact of possession of the lands which is the subject of the dispute actual.

(3.) It may be noted that a similar question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. In R.B. Bhuttani v. Mani1 Desai, J. it was held - The satisfaction under sub-S. (1) of 5. 145 is of the Magistrate. The question whether on the materials before him, he should initiate proceedings or not is therefore in his discretion which, no doubt has to be exercised in accordance with well recognised rules of law in that behalf. No hard and fast rule can therefore, be laid down as to the sufficiency of material for his satisfaction. The language of the sub-section is clear and unambiguous that he can arrive at his satisfaction, both from the police report or from other information which must include an application by the party dispossessed. The High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not go into the question of sufficiency of material which has satisfied the Magistrate.