Skip to content


Lingegowda and ors. Vs. Chikka Nilegowda - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Criminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Petn. No. 67 of 1952-53
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Kant131; AIR1953Mys131; ILR1953KAR315
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145 and 145(6)
AppellantLingegowda and ors.
RespondentChikka Nilegowda
Appellant AdvocateA.C. Byrappa, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC.N. Rajan, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....was not accompanied by proposed amendment - every resolution has to be passed by members - special general body meeting notice should contain written or printed report of proposed amendment held, mandatory requirements not complied with. also votes casted were less than three times number of votes cast against resolution. meeting convened held to be contrary to act . registration of amended bye-laws is not proper. - enables a district magistrate, sub-divisional magistrate or magistrate of the first class to pass an order under that section only when they are satisfied from a perusal of the police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of his jurisdiction...........but on the eastern side it is difficult to say what the boundary line is, as to the east of the land in dispute is the land of the petitioners themselves. it is contended that the petitioners are in a fix as they do not know to what portion of the entire property the order prohibits them from being in possession of. it cannot but be said that there is real difficulty in giving effect to the order of the learned magistrate, and the order therefore needs interference in revision.3. section 145, cr. p. c. enables a district magistrate, sub-divisional magistrate or magistrate of the first class to pass an order under that section only when they are satisfied from a perusal of the police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned First Class Magistrate, Mysore in Criminal Misc. 2 of 51-52 holding that the first party-respondent is in possession of the property in respect of which proceedings under Section 145 Criminal P. C. had been instituted and directing the Receiver to put him in possession of the property so that he might be in possession till he is evicted therefrom in due course of law.

2. The property in respect of which proceedings under Section 145 were instituted by the Bannur Police at the instance of respondent 1 has been described as being bounded on the east by the lands belonging to the second party (petnrs.), West, land belonging to Hampapaur Maszid, on the north by a land of Lingappa and others and on the south by a Government lane. It will be noticed that the boundaries on three sides are clear, but on the eastern side it is difficult to say what the boundary line is, as to the east of the land in dispute is the land of the petitioners themselves. It is contended that the petitioners are in a fix as they do not know to what portion of the entire property the order prohibits them from being in possession of. It cannot but be said that there is real difficulty in giving effect to the order of the learned Magistrate, and the order therefore needs interference in revision.

3. Section 145, Cr. P. C. enables a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class to pass an order under that Section only when they are satisfied from a perusal of the Police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of his jurisdiction. This can only mean that a police report or other information from which the Magistrate has to be satisfied about the likelihood of a breach of peace must state that the dispute is in respect of a certain land within his jurisdiction. For instance, if the report or other information merely states that the dispute is with reference to a land within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate without stating what that land is, and r,o material is placed to ascertain what that land is, the Magistrate cannot pass any final order under Section 145 (6), Cr. P. C. Though no exact case has been brought to my notice on the point I may refer to the decision in -- '4 Mys. C. C. R. 269' (A) in which it has been observed as follows:

'The Magistrate's order is clearly wrong, in that it includes property not in dispute. The order to be passed under Chap. XI, Criminal P. C. must be limited to the property the subject of dispute.

'The Magistrate must, in the first place ascertain which is the exact property the subject of dispute; and then take evidence as to actual possession.'

The learned Magistrate should have in this case ascertained the exact boundaries of the land before he proceeded to pass any order, or he could have at least taken evidence on the point before passing a final order. No such thing has been done. The orders of the learned Magistrate in Criminal Misc. 2 of 51-52 including the order appointing a Receiver are set aside leaving both the parties in the same position as if no proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. had been taken.

4. Order set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //