G BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. TAHSILDAR-CUM-EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in E3/3203/10 dated 9.4.2010 under Section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner is arrayed as 'A' Party No.1 in the proceedings of the 1st respondent.

(3.) Brief case of the fact as per the petitioner is that the lands to an extent of 43 grounds and 2,215 sq.ft. comprised in old Paimash No.967 to 972, T.S.No.16/1 to 16/6, Block No.38, Puliyur Village, Kodambakkam Division was originally owned and possessed by the petitioner's grand father, late Kalyana Sundaram and he died intestate leaving behind his wife Anjammal and she also died intestate and it is the case of the petitioner that thereafter by succession he has become the owner of the aforesaid property along with his mother Smt.Jayalakshmi and sisters, Mahadevi and Manjula. It is further submitted that out of the aforesaid lands, lands to the extent of 31 grounds and 2,346 sq.ft. were sought to be acquired by the Government of Tamilnadu for Tamilnadu Housing Board. Later, the acquisition proceedings were confirmed by this court by a judgment dated 27.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.366/1999 and thereafter, review application at the instance of another claimant in respect of the said claim has been filed with an application for condonation of delay, acceptance of cause title and the same is pending. The case of the petitioner is that he was also taking steps for getting reconveyance of the said land from the Government and while the matter standing thus, at the instance of the power of attorney, certain documents appeared to have been created and there were attempts to challenge the title and possession of the petitioner. Further, in respect of the very same property, a civil suit has also been filed which is pending in C.S.No.166 of 1989. While it is so, the petitioner had been served with the impugned notice from the 1st respondent referring to case in Crime No.74 of 2010 under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Code of Procedure filed by the 2nd respondent, calling upon the addresses of the said notice and in the said notice, the petitioner's mother and other respondents and two of their Advocates have been formally impleaded as respondents 10 and 11 and they were directed to appear before the 1st respondent for an enquiry on 30.4.2010. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner's counsel Thiru.V.Mani addressed a detailed letter to the 1st respondent herein on 28.5.2010 bringing it to the notice of the 1st respondent that the said notice dated 9.4.2010 was served only on 20.5.2010 and that the said notice was improper and unsustainable in law and that there was not even a preliminary order and hence the said notice may be withdrawn. Even without taking the said reply issued by the counsel for the petitioner into consideration, the 1st respondent had again issued the same notice with the date as 12.7.2010 for hearing. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner's counsel had again sent reply on 6.7.2010 and despite the same, the 1st respondent had issued another notice dated 10.8.2010 calling upon the parties to appear before him on 30.08.2010 is the matter which has been challenged in this petition. The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 09.04.2010.