BANGARRAJU Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narasapur, in M. C. No. 1 of 1978. The brief facts leading to the impugned order are as follows, The Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram, laid information on 11-5-78 in Crl. No. 115/78 under section 145, Cr. PC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narsapur, requesting him for passing an order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. restraining the A and B parties as there is apprehension of breach of peace that might be caused at the Ramakrishna Prakruthi Ashramam premises, Bhimavaram. Taking into consideration the information laid by the Inspector of Police, and also the circumstance that the likelihood of breach of peace that might break out in view of the dispute in respect of the said building, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed orders on 4-5-78 in M. C. 1/78 and restrained both the parties from interfering into the double storeyed building bearing Nos. 10, 12, 61 and 27 of Gunupudi Revenue Village of Bhimavaram Municipal area corresponding to the part of Ramakrishna Prakruthi Ashramam, Bhimavaram under dispute pending disposal of the petition. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also felt it desirable in the interests of justice to attach the schedule property under Sec. 146 (1) of Cr. P. C. pending disposal of the petition, and so holding he appointed Sri M. Rambabu, MA. LLB., Tahsildar Bhimavaram, as Official Receiver, under section 146 Cr PC to safe guard the interests of the property under dispute and directed him (the Receiver appointed) to take possession of the schedule property at once for looking after it pending receipt of further orders on ll th day of May, 1978. Sn P. V. Bhaskararao, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narsapur, was succeeded by Sri AK. Goel. IAS. Before him the counsel for A and B parties filed counters claiming their respective rights. Then the learned SubDivisional Magistrate, heard the arguments of both sides and held that when once the property which is the subject matter of the proceedings, was attached by that Court, that court is precluded from deciding the rights of the property as per the decision reported in Ravindran vs. Rugmini Amma and others and tnat it is the Civil Court that has to decide the rights of the parties, and directed both the parties to get their respective rights adjudicated in the Civil Court. He also directed that the receiver appointed by that Court to continue in possession of the said property till another receiver is appointed by a competent Civil Court. Aggrieved with this order, the present revision is filed by A-Party,

(2.) Sii Audinarayanaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in Mathuralal vs. Bhanvarial which laid down, that in case of emergency, a Magistrate can attach the property, at any ume, alter making preliminary order, and there is no express stipulation m section 140 (1) Cr PC, that jurisdiction of the Magistrate tor proceeding into enquiry under Section 145 (4) ends with the attachment, and the Suo-divisional Magistrate is, therefore, empowered to proceed with the enquiry under Section 145 (1), Cr pC and pass necessary orders after due enquiry into the respective claims of both the parties, and the impugned order, therefore, is not correct, and in view of the above said Supreme Court decision, the decision relied upon by the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate is no more good law. As against this contention Sri Venkateswara Rao learned counsel for the B. Party-respondent contends tha the Supreme Court decision in Maihurlal vs. Bhanwarlal is not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is ju lined in directing the parties to get their respective claims adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

(3.) From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the SubDivisional Magistrate. Narsapur, after being satisfied with the circumstances that there is likelihood of breach of peace being caused by the interested parties on account of the dispute in respect of the property in question, and hence felt it desirable to appoint the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram, as Receiver under section 146 (2) Cr. P.C., and restrained both the parties from entering into the property in question. It is further clear that both A and B parties submitted their respective claims before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Then the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate took up the matter for enquiry and heard the arguments on both sides. After bearing the argu agriments on both sides, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate felt that after the order of attachment was made and a receiver was appointed, he need not proceed with the enquiry into the question as to which party was in possession of the land in dispute, except referring both the parties to a Civil Court to get their respective claims adjudicated by a competent civil Court.