DITTAKAVI ANANTHA PADMANABHAMOORTHY Vs. TAHSILDAR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE TAHSILDAR MAMBALAM-GUINDY TALUK K K NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision Case filed under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records of the first respondent in No.E-1/3121/2007 and orders dated 24.5.2007 and set aside the orders of the first respondent passed in E-1/3121/2007 dated 24.5.2007. ) The order passed by the Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk under section 145 of the Code of CRIMINAL Procedure is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE third respondent-Vedha Arun Nagarajan, the fourth respondent-P.K. Ali Akbar, the fifth respondent-S.Paramanandam, the sixth respondent-M.S.Mani and one K.V.Sivaramprasad the power of attorney of the petitioners herein lodged complaints with the second respondent Inspector of Police, R3 Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083 and the same were registered by the second respondent police. As there was scramble for possession of the property which may result in law and order problem affecting peace in the locality, the aforesaid cases were referred to the Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk to determine who actually was in possession of the property. THE Tahilsdar cum Executive Magistrate, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk issued summons to the complainants and directed them to appear for hearing on 17.4.2007. THE dispute relates to property bearing old door No,97/1, Plot No.A/4A measuring 3 grounds 840 sqft in Block No,24, Survey No,2 in Kodambakkam Village

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk has rightly decided the actual possession of the property at the time when the dispute arose which culminated in lodging the complaints by the respective parties. In the alleged proceedings initiated as against Balakrishnan and his legal heirs by the petitioners herein, the third respondent C.Vedha Arun Nagarajan was not at all a party. Except the documents of title produced by the petitioners, they have not chosen to establish actual possession. The sale deed and the mortgage deed produced by the third respondent C.Vedha Arun Nagarajan would establish that he was in possession of the suit property at the time when the dispute arose between the parties. It is his further submission that the petitioners had not gone into the box to depose before the Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk to speak about their actual possession. The last submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent is that the provision under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to evict a person.