IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 204 of 2001() ----------------------------- MC.48/1999 of THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.V.KRISHNA PODUVAL, S/O RAMA PODUVAL, AGED 51 YEARS. MAYILATTYKUNNU, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARGOD AT KANHANGAD, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT 2. K.SEKHARAN, S/O SEKHARAN, MAYILATTYKUNNU, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT 3. SMT.P.SUBAIDA, W/O LATEEF, MAYILATTYKUNNU, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT ADV. SRI.E.V.NAYANAR FOR R2&3 SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR FOR R2&3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 204 of 2001 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.871/2001 DISMISSED 9.2.2009 SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.204/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 ORDER The B party in M.C.48/1999, proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasargode at Kanhangad, is the petitioner in this Revision. It seems that the Sub Inspector of police, Chandera, forwarded a report to the effect that there exists a dispute between A and B parties concerning the possession and enjoyment of the landed properties measuring an extent of 0.17 acres in R.S.No.360 and 429/1A of Cheruvathur Village. A preliminary order under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C was passed. The properties were thereafter, attached and the Village Officer was appointed as receiver. Both sides appeared before the Court and raised rival claims. B party, the petitioner herein, contended that he was in possession of 52 cents in R.S.No.360/20 including item No.1 of the schedule to the preliminary order. He further contended that he was assigned 31 cents and the remaining 21 cents Crl.R.P.204/2001 2 are also in his possession and enjoyment. It seems that A parties were not present on two occasions and the learned Magistrate proceeded to find that the land scheduled to the order is registered as puramboke in the revenue records and possession as claimed by both parties is unauthorized. But, further proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C was dropped presumably because A party had not asserted possession over the property. The order of attachment is also lifted. It seems that the B party is aggrieved only by the following sentence in the order. “The Tahsildar, Hosdurg, will take action under the KLC Act.” 2. It is contended that having dropped the proceedings, it was not necessary for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to thereafter, issue a direction to the Tahsildar to initiate action under the Land Conservancy Act. I am in agreement with the said submission. If the Crl.R.P.204/2001 3 proceedings are dropped and the order of attachment is lifted, the Sub Divisional Magistrate should have left the matter there. Of course, if the revenue officials are of the opinion that any person, either A party, B party or any other third party, is in unauthorized possession of Government land, then, action can be initiated under the Land Conservancy Act. But that is different from an Appellate authority under the Land Conservancy Act issuing a direction to the original authority to initiate action under the Act, at the time of dropping the proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the said direction seems to be inconsistent with the procedure which was till then followed namely, putting the property under the possession of a receiver after attachment and thereafter, lifting the attachment. If the Village Officer himself was in possession, then there was no necessity to initiate any action under the Act. At any rate, these are matters for separate enquiry under the Land Conservancy Act. Crl.R.P.204/2001 4 3. Accordingly, Revision petition is allowed in part and while sustaining the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, dropping the proceedings in M.C.No.48/99, the last direction issued therein requiring the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, is vacated. It is made clear that this order need not be understood as one fettering the hands of the competent authority under the Act from independently initiating any proceedings under the L.C.Act, if there are materials which requires him to do so and if it is otherwise permissible in law. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs