Skip to content


Bisse Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Mysore by Bethamangala Police, Bangarapet Taluk and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1969CriLJ1170
AppellantBisse Gowda and ors.
RespondentState of Mysore by Bethamangala Police, Bangarapet Taluk and ors.
Excerpt:
.....the effect that as on the date on which the preliminary order had been made, the members of the first party were in possession at land to which the dispute petitioned, has been made after a consideration of the documentary evidence (which consisted of certain documents like, lease deed, mortgage deed and also affidavits filed by the parties and other persona. 4. it was strongly urged by the learned advocate far the petitioners that the learned magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to make the preliminary order, in view of the fact that in the said order the magistrate has not recorded the grounds on which he was satisfied that there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace. prom his evidence and also from the other papers produced in this case, i am satisfied that there is a..........sri rego advocate, for the state public prosecutor.3. the conclusion which has been reached by the learned magistrate in his final order to the effect that as on the date on which the preliminary order had been made, the members of the first party were in possession at land to which the dispute petitioned, has been made after a consideration of the documentary evidence (which consisted of certain documents like, lease deed, mortgage deed and also affidavits filed by the parties and other persona.) having regard to the view which i propose to take in the case, i consider it unnecessary to express any opinion in regard to the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned magistrate in his final order, on the question of possession.4. it was strongly urged by the learned.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M. Sadasivaiya, J.

1. The petitioners were the members of the second party in 0. M. C. No. 17 of 1966 in the Court of the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Kolar. In that case, the present respondents were the members of the first party. Proceedings had been taken under Section 145 of the Criminal P.C., in respect of survey No. 1 of Doddakari village of Bangarapet Taluk. The preliminary order had been made by the Magistrate on 27.4.1966 and the final order was made on 16-10-1967. It is the validity of this final order that is now attack, ed in this criminal revision petition.

2. I have heard Sri Byra Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri V. Tarakaram who has appeared for the respondents and Sri Rego Advocate, for the State Public Prosecutor.

3. The conclusion which has been reached by the learned Magistrate in his final order to the effect that as on the date on which the preliminary order had been made, the members of the first party were in possession at land to which the dispute petitioned, has been made after a consideration of the documentary evidence (which consisted of certain documents like, lease deed, mortgage deed and also affidavits filed by the parties and other persona.) Having regard to the view which I propose to take in the case, I consider it unnecessary to express any opinion in regard to the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Magistrate in his final order, on the question of possession.

4. It was strongly urged by the learned Advocate far the petitioners that the learned Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to make the preliminary order, in view of the fact that in the said order the Magistrate has not recorded the grounds on which he was satisfied that there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace. The contention is that in the absence of the Magistrate placing on record, as part of the preliminary order, the said grounds, the magistrate would not have the jurisdiction to proceed to make a preliminary order.

5. That preliminary order is as follows: --

In the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolar.

Case No. CM. C. 17/66 1st PartyGovernment v. 1. K. M. Nanjundagowcla. (Bethamanagala2. Sonnappa.Police) II Party1. Basegowada.2. B. Munegowada.3. B. Nanjundegowda.4. Ramappa.5. Mekalappa @ Muniswamy.6. Narayanagowda.7. Muniswamy.8. Bamappa.9. Thippanna.10. Krishnappa.11. Bamappa.12. E.M. Maregowda.13. Chinnappiah.All are residents of Doddakari.

27-4-1966. The I. O., has been examined. Prom his evidence and also from the other papers produced in this case, I am satisfied that there is a sufficient prima facie evidence on record to show that there is a dispute between the members of the 1st party and 2nd parties which is likely to lead to a breach of peace, regarding the harvesting the tamarind fruits, situated in S. No. 1 of Doddakari village, Bethamangala Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk and home the following order is passed.


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