AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Horwill, J.—The petitioner is dissatisfied with the order passed by the Joint Magistrate of Chicacole, refusing to adjudicate on the
petitioner''s rights and to pass orders restraining the counter-petitioners from interfering with the petitioner''s possession.
The petitioner is the Mahant of the Balaga Mutt. P.W. 2 is his tenant; and the counter-petitioners are a number of persons, including several
sub-tenants of P.W. 2. During the course of the hearing it seems to have been argued that the Mahant had no locus standi; because he was not the
person in actual possession. The Magistrate seems to have accepted that argument; but he also came to the conclusion that there was no danger of
a breach of the peace and that the police had exaggerated the matter. He therefore dismissed the application.
I agree with the learned Joint Magistrate that the Mahant is not a party to the dispute within the meaning of Section 145, Criminal Procedure
Code. It has been held in many cases that Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned with persons in actual possession, the word
''actual'' being used in contra-distinction to constructive possession. That does not however mean that the Mahant had no locus standi; he was
interested in the land and in his tenants; and there can be no legal objection to a Magistrate''s taking notice of a dispute merely because his attention
had been drawn to the dispute by an absentee landlord.
Although there was an order that the petitioner should print all the papers on which he wished to rely, he has chosen not to print most of the
relevant evidence; and so we do not know exactly what the nature of the dispute is. It does however appear that P.W. 2 had sub-leased the land
to some other persons; and the fact that they figure as counter-petitioners instead of as petitioners, indicates that there is some dispute between
P.W. 2 and his sub-tenants and that there was no real dispute about actual possession. Those counter-petitioners who would be entitled to be in
actual physical possession as the sub-tenants of P.W. 2 * do not seem to have any dispute with the other counter-petitioners. So it does seem,
prima facie, as if the dispute is not what the petitioner would have the Court believe. However that may he, the Joint Magistrate was entitled to
consider the question whether a breach of the peace was likely. He has given reasons for thinking that no breach of the peace was likely to occur.
He disposed of that petition as long ago as April of last year, and as far as we know, there has been no breach of the peace since.
No case has therefore been made out for interference in revision. The petition is dismissed.