Vujjini Panduranga Rao vs State Of Telangana

This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS challenging the action of the Respondents herein more particularly Respondent No.3, in issuing Preliminary order U/s.145 Cr.P.C., in proceedings No.L/499/2018 dt. 03/04/2018 on the false and baseless report submitted by the Respondents NoS.5 and 6, stating that there is a land dispute in Sy.No. 273 and 274 of Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distric,t causing law and problem situation as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the Petitioners Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 15, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the Respondents herein to forthwith revoke/cancel the Preliminary order U/s.145 Cr.P.C.,in proceedings No L/499/2018 dt. 03/04/2018, issued by Respondent No 3 in respect of Petitioner plots situated in Sy.No. 273 and 274 of Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass.."

Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

According to petitioners, they purchased plots in a layout of land on an extent of Acs.2.15 guntas in Sy.No.273 and 274 of, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioners 1 and 2 jointly purchased 1800 Sq.yards of plot and petitioners 3 and 4 jointly purchased 1070 Sq.yards of plot in the same layout. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., dated 03.04.2018.

The said orders are passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, based on a report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam. The contents of the order disclose that based on the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the survey was ordered to specifically identify the boundaries in Sy.Nos.273 and 274. Initially, 09.02.2017 was fixed to conduct survey but survey could not be conducted on the said date and on several other dates also, obviously, because of rival disputes. In the meantime, the writ petition was filed in this Court and this Court stayed further proceedings. It appears to be an inter se rivalry between different persons claiming to be owning the property in Sy.Nos.273 and 274, creating law and order problem in the locality. In order to prevent further complications and to ensure peace and tranquillity in the area, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, requested the Sub Divisional Magistrate to exercise powers under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., and to take possession of subject lands and accordingly, the said proceedings were issued.

The Executive Magistrate may be justified in exercising power under Section 145 of Cr.P.C but the question is can he continue to enforce the said decision for ever ?.

According to sub-section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C., on the submission of report by the police officer concerned informing the Executive Magistrate that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning any land within his jurisdiction, he should make an order in writing assigning reasons in support of the order. According to sub-section (4) of Section 145 Cr.P.C., without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties on right to possess the property in dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible decide whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the property in dispute on the date of order made by him under sub-section (1).

The scheme and object of Section 145 Cr.P.C. makes it very clear that the Executive Magistrate can exercise such extraordinary power to interfere in private disputes to protect public peace, public safety and maintenance of public order in the locality. Therefore, it is urgent in nature and to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances. It is meant to ensure that dispute on a property should not escalate into a grave law and order problem. It is intended to ensure cooling down of tempers and to restore peace. Per force, its operation has to be for a limited period. This is also apparent from a reading of sub-section (4) thereof. Thus, soon after the powers are exercised and restraints are imposed, the Executive Magistrate must set in motion the process of identifying the person who was in possession of the property when he took possession, however, without entering into the merits of the respective claims of title and possession and decide whether possession can be granted to him. In the case on hand, though such process was set in motion, no further steps were taken and restraint orders continue to operate even after three years.

Having regard to the scheme and object of Section 145 Cr.P.C., the order of the Executive Magistrate, impugned in the writ petition, cannot be continued for ever.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, respondent No.3, to forthwith undertake the exercise, as required by Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C., complete the said exercise and take consequential action within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Notwithstanding the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is open to the parties to work out their remedies as available in law. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.