(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 injunc- 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: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_20_TLKAR0_1978Html1.htm</FRM>
(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.