- (1.) THE petitioners have preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Tiruvellore made in R.C.No.7114 of 1999 dated 11.9.2000.
(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE respondent filed a petition under Sec.145 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "Code") before the authorities concerned on 22.12.1999 stating that the 8th petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute. THE father of the respondent had been cultivating the land on lease and after his demise, he has been cultivating the land for the past 30 years by paying the rent of Rs.4,800, for 12 bags of paddy per year. Due to some money transaction between the parties, the petitioners attempted to dispossess him from the land by way of bogus lease documents executed in favour of other parties in respect of the very same property. On 6.7.1999 the petitioners threatened to dispossess the respondent with the help of anti-social elements and therefore, the respondent filed O.S.No.177 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvellore. In the meantime, the petitioners ploughed the green gram on 6.12.1999 and on the next day, they also ploughed the land with the help of a tractor. THEre were chances for the breach of peace and public tranquillity. He had also filed affidavits of four neighbours. The Tahsildar, Tiruvellore was asked to report which party had been in possession of the lands prior to 22.12.1999. On making field inspection and after conducting due enquiry, the Tahsildar sent a report on 22.7.2000 that the respondent had been in possession of the land for the past 15 years and he alone was in possession of the property prior to two months. The petitioners took a stand that the allegation that the respondent had been cultivating the property for 30 years is false. It is true that the respondent filed, O.S.No.177 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvellore on 7.7.1999 and also filed I.A.No.1114 of 1999 for an order of interim injunction and the same was not granted. Only thereafter, the respondent has approached the revenue authority by filing this petition. The respondent was not in possession of the property. The land under dispute belonged to the 8th petitioner. By a letter dated 2.11.1990, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property with the permission of the 8th petitioner. Since the matter had already been seized by the Civil Court, the present application filed by the respondent is not maintainable. The litigant has no right to conduct parallel proceedings, one before the Civil Court and the other before the revenue authority. When the matter is already seized by the competent Civil Court, the revenue divisional officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. After hearing the parties, the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Tiruvellore allowed the application filed by the respondent and ordered restoration of possession of the property to him until evicted therefrom in due course of law and aggrieved against this, the present revision has been filed by the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. The point that arises for consideration is: (1) Whether the order passed by the Sub Collector, Tiruvellore dated 11.9.2000 is proper and correcte Or, whether any interference is called for.
(3.) POINT:There is no dispute that the property bearing Survey No.87/2 measuring 0.91.0 Hectare in Melanur Village in Tiruvellore Taluk, belonged to the 8th petitioner. The respondent already filed a suit in O.S.No.177 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvellore on 7.7.1999 and also filed I.A.No.1114 of 1999 for interim order of injunction. Admittedly, the interim order of injunction was not granted. When the petitioners attempted to take forcible possession of the property, the respondent was constrained to file a petition under Sec. 145 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiruvellore. The report from Tahsildar was also called for by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and based on the report only, the Sub Collector ordered restoration of possession of the property to the respondent herein until evicted therefrom in due course of law. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners mainly contended that the Court below ought to have seen that they are in actual physical possession of the property and they have cultivated and harvested the crops. Petition under Sec.145 of the Code was filed on 22.12.1999 and it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to see that who was in actual possession within two months before 22.12.1999. The inspection by the Tahsildar was made on 22.7.2000 and the paddy crop was raised only by the first petitioner and it was also ripe for harvest. Hence, the first petitioner alone could have been in actual possession of the property. There was dispute regarding possession of the property and the respondent was not granted any interim order in the Civil Court. The principles laid down by the Apex Court have not been considered by the lower authority. It has been held that the parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue when the possession is being examined by the Civil Court and the parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for interim orders. The Court below erroneously appreciated the chitta adangal furnished by the village administrative officer for the year 1997 as a relevant document to prove the actual possession as on 22.12.1999. In any event, there was no breach of peace regarding the actual possession of the disputed property and ought to have held that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed property. The respondent has filed type set of documents and he has produced the chitta adangal. The respondent has given various complaints to the police on 18.12.999, 13.1.2000 and 11.1.2001. The respondent was constrained to file a petition under Sec.145 of the Code since at the instance of the 8th petitioner, the other petitioners were attempting to take forcible possession of the property. It is necessary to state that the respondent and his father are in possession of the property on lease. After the lifetime of the father, the respondent claims himself to be in possession of the property and therefore, the 8th petitioner, who happened to be the owner of the property, has given the lease-hold right in favour of some other petitioners and they attempted to take forcible possession of the property, which resulted the respondent in filing a separate suit in July, 1999. When the petitioners attempted to take forcible possession and there was a possibility of breach of peace, the respondent moved the revenue authority filing petition under Sec.145 of the Code. ;