AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govinda Menon, J.—In proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the Lankas in
dispute under the second proviso to Section 145 (4) and directed the Tahsildar to sell the cultivation rights by public auction of each plot
separately and submit the sale list and bidders'' list to him. Accordingly the Tahsildar sold the rights to a number of bidders and submitted the list.
Whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on complaint by certain others cancelled the order of the Tahsildar and directed the cultivation rights to
be given to various persons as stated in his order, dated 17th July, 1947. It is this order that is now sought to be revised on the ground that the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to set aside the auction sale held by the Tahsildar. In Srinivasa Pillai v. Sathayappa Pillai 14 Ind.Cas.
759 Sankaran Nair, J., has laid down that a receiver appointed u/s 145 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only an agent or servant of the
Magistrate whose order is only an administrative order for the management of the property. A receiver u/s 146(2) has got all powers, which an
ordinary receiver has under the Code of Civil Procedure. This decision has been followed by a Bench of the Patna High Court in Nandkishore
Prasad Singh v. Radhakrishna Chatterjee I.L.R.(1942) Pat. 743. Therefore the Tahsildar who was directed to sell cultivation rights, is only an
agent of the Magistrate and the directions given to him are merely administrative orders which can be varied by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. As
the order setting aside the sale passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is only an administrative one no revision lies and this Court cannot
interfere.
The criminal revision cases are accordingly dismissed.