YELUGUBANTI HARI BABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While this appeal is, no doubt, preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39133 of 2017 dated 27.11.2017, both Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions from the 2nd respondent, agree that the writ petition itself be heard and decided at the stage of admission.

(2.) The Learned Single Judge had, before passing the order under appeal, called for the records and noted that there were criminal cases pending against the appellant-writ petitioner. We had also called for the records to satisfy ourselves that the satisfaction of the Tahsildar, that there existed a dispute with respect to the subject land which was likely to cause a breach of peace necessitating an order being passed under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C, was formed on the basis of the material placed before him.

(3.) Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order of the Tahsildar dated 17.10.2017, (the validity of which is impugned in the Writ Petition), is contrary to Section 145 Cr.P.C; it is an abuse of power, and is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tahsildar who was obligated to record reasons stating the grounds on which he was satisfied that there was a likelihood of breach of peace; action under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. can only be taken on the basis of a police report, to which no reference is made in the impugned order; reference ought to have been made by the Tahsildar to the material based on which he had arrived at the conclusion that there was a likelihood of breach of peace; and, in any event, no order could have been passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C without putting the appellant-writ petitioner on notice, and without giving him an opportunity of being heard.