PAMKUNTLA PRATAP REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, order dated 14-09-2009 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahabubnagar in case No.M/2954/2009 is in question. It was an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 147 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners 1 and 2 not to cause any obstruction to the passers through cart track lying in survey Nos.330/A to 331 and 338 of Kondareddypally Village. The petitioners are owners of lands in the above survey numbers. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order on a petition filed by the respondents 2 to 4 herein.

(2.) Main grievance of the petitioners is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order without notice to them and without following the procedure prescribed by Section 147(1) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the counsel for respondents 2 to 4 contends that though the impugned order does not read giving of notice to the petitioners 1 and 2, but there is indication in the impugned order to show that the petitioners also appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and raised their objections. He drew attention of this Court to the following passage in the impugned order.

(3.) The above passage does not indicate that the objection petitioner Pamkuntla Pratap Reddy appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and raised any objections or contentions or filed any objection petition or counter in the proceedings. On total reading of the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that on filing of petition by the respondents 2 to 4 before him, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded certain statements of villagers and passed the impugned order.