Skip to content


M.K. Ibrahim Shariff Vs. the Sub-inspector of Police - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1979CriLJ175
AppellantM.K. Ibrahim Shariff
RespondentThe Sub-inspector of Police
Excerpt:
.....of delay in filing the application under section 18(3)(b). the procedure followed by the court below is untenable and cannot be appreciated. impugned order was set aside and matter remitted to trial court. - in this notice, the sub-inspector of police has clearly issued an order restraining the petitioner from enjoying the lands in his possession. shivappa is clearly untenable and i therefore reject it......the enjoyment of above land until disposal of re-enquiry of land tribunal.sd/- xxxsub inspector of police,periyapatna police station,mysore district 25/1.sd/- xxx (in urdu)25-4-78.section 154 i. p. cxx xx3. in the penultimate para of the notice the sub-inspector of police has expressly directed the petitioner to stop the enjoyment of the lands till the end of a fresh enquiry by the land tribunal in pursuance of the order of this court in writ petition no. 2846/77. in my opinion, shri g. s. visweswara, learned counsel for the petitioner, is right in his submission that though the impugned notice is styled as a warning notice, it is really in the nature of an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from enjoying the lands that are in his possession and therefore the interference of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.

1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 25-1-1978 (date arid year of the notice are not clear received by him on 25-4-1978) issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Periyapatna Police Station, Periyapatna.

2. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of S. Nos. 107/1, 107/2 and 135 measuring about 5 acres and 23 guntas of land situated at Makodu village, Periyapatna Taluk. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in actual possession and enjoyment of these lands as tenant of one Chandpeer Sab and the application made by his landlord for grant of injunction was refused by this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by his landlord in Writ Petn. No. 2846 of 1977 which has been finally decided on 22-2-1978. It is his case that while he is in possession and no injunctions tion has been granted either by a Land Tribunal or a Civil Court, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Periyapatna Police Station in the impugned notice styled as a 'warning notice to owners and occupiers of land when a breach of peace is apprehended', has virtually issued an order or temporary injunction restraining him from enjoying the lands in his possession. The notice of the Sub-Inspector received on 25-4-1978 by the petitioner reads thus:

Warning Notice to Owners and Occupiers of land when a Breach of the Peace is apprehended.

To

M.K. Ibrahim Sheriff.

s/o Kareem Sheriff.

aged 56 yrs, on behalf of

Land in Sy. No- 107/1, 107/2

and 135/1. .. Owner Occupier.

At village: Makodu village.

Police Station: Periyapatna.

District: Mysore.

Sir.

Information has reached me of the likelihood of a breach of the peace in respect of a dispute regarding land dispute in Sy. No. 107/1, 107/2, and 135/1 at Makodu village, Periyapatna Taluk situated at and bounded as below in which you are interested as owner or occupier, have trerefore, to request you to use all lawful means in your power as required in Section 154, Indian Penal Code, to prevent any breach of the peace. In order to impress upon you your responsibility under the provision of the said section, it is reproduced on the back for ready reference.

Boundaries of the place on which/about which a breach of the peace is apprehended:

1. North; Land of Kaseregowda;

2. East: Land of Kasaregowda;

3. South: Soppina Garden, Do-ddakere

4. West: Kaleppa, Javarappa's land.

You are hereby directed to stop the enjoyment of the above said land till the end of fresh enquiry at Tribunal Court, Periyapatna, as per the order of Writ Petition No. 2846/77 dated 22-2-1978 of High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. Hence you are requested to stop the enjoyment of above land until disposal of re-enquiry of Land Tribunal.

Sd/- xxx

Sub Inspector of Police,

Periyapatna Police Station,

Mysore District 25/1.

Sd/- xxx (in Urdu)

25-4-78.

Section 154 I. P. C

xx xx

3. In the penultimate para of the notice the Sub-Inspector of Police has expressly directed the petitioner to stop the enjoyment of the lands till the end of a fresh enquiry by the Land Tribunal in pursuance of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2846/77. In my opinion, Shri G. S. Visweswara, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is right in his submission that though the impugned notice is styled as a warning notice, it is really in the nature of an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from enjoying the lands that are in his possession and therefore the interference of this Court is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Shri G. S. Visweswara, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that a police officer either under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Indian Penal Code or under any other law, has no jurisdiction and power to restrain a person in possession of agricultural lands from enjoying the lands that are in his possession. It is settled law that a police officer cannot issue injunctions or any orders restraining the owners or persons who are in possession of any agricultural lands. In view of my earlier finding that the Sub-Inspector of Police in the impugned notice has virtually granted an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from enjoying the lands in his possession, it has to be held that the order though styled as a warning notice of the Sub-Inspector of Police is without jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be quashed.

5. On the reverse of the impugned notice, the Sub-Inspector of Police has extracted Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code evidently as authorising him to issue the same, and interfere with the property rights of land owners and tenants. Even a first reading of Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code would show that that section does not authorise the Sub-Inspector of Police to issue the impugned notice which is really in the nature of a temporary injunction against the petitioner.

6. Shri C. Shivappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, strenuously contended that in the impugned notice, the Sub-Inspector of Police has not granted an injunction either temporary or permanent restraining the petitioner from enjoying the lands in his possession. Shri C. Shivappa maintained that the impugned notice was a warning notice intended to prevent breach of peace and therefore interference of this Court is not called for. I have already extracted the relevant portions of the notice issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police. From a reading of the notice issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, it is abundantly clear that it is not a mere warning notice issued to the petitioner. In this notice, the Sub-Inspector of Police has clearly issued an order restraining the petitioner from enjoying the lands in his possession. In my opinion, this contention of Shri C. Shivappa is clearly untenable and I therefore reject it.

7. Shri C. Shivappa learned High Court Government Pleader, next contended that against the impugned notice even if it is construed as an order of temporary injunction, the petitioner can move the Land Tribunal under Section 48-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and get necessary redress from the Land Tribunal and therefore this Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for. In my opinion, this contention of Shri C. Shivappa is wholly misconceived and is untenable. Section 48-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act confers original power on the Land Tribunal to grant an order of temporary injunction or appoint a Receiver as the circumstances justify. Section 48-C does not contemplate an appeal or a revision or any other remedy to a per' son who is aggrieved by a direction issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police as in the case before me.

8. In the light of my above discussion, I quash the impugned notice by issue or a writ of mandamus.

9. Rule made absolute.

10. Petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-.


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