K. Peter John v. The Sub Division Magistrate
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 03.01.2018 Delivered on : 11.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8527 of 2013 & MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 1.K.Peter John 2.K.Eugin Ravi Kumar 3.K.Ezhil 4.V.Kurusumicheal ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay Post, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Parish Pastoral Council, Church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Murasancode Parish, Neyyoor Post, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the order, dated 16.05.2013, passed in Na.Ka.No.A2/2382/2013, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. For Petitioners : Mr.J.John Jayakumar For R1 : Mr.K.S.Duraipandian Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.Manimaran
ORDER
The petitioners 1 and 4 were directed by the learned SubDivisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, to remove the compound wall situated at S.F.No.203/4, Lakshmipuram Village, Kalkulam Taluk and further directed to construct the compound wall after leaving pathway in 6 feet width, against which, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed for quashing the above proceedings, dated 17.05.2013.
2.Now, along with the petitioners 1 and 4, the petitioners 2 and 3 also filed this petition based on the ground that they are also having right over the property in S.F.No.203/4. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent herein without any enquiry, passed the impugned proceedings, which is in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Further, he submitted that the disputed property was purchased by the fourth petitioner through the sale deed dated 25.05.1990. After purchasing the said property, the fourth respondent herein executed a settlement deed dated 31.03.2009 in favour of the first petitioner. After execution of the settlement deed, mutations were effected in the revenue records and thereby, Patta has been changed in favour of the first petitioner.
After receiving notice from the first respondent, the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 herein sent a reply by stating the abovesaid reasons. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are claiming title in S.F.No.203/4 through the sale deed, dated 25.05.1990. 4.This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
5.Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as follows: ''300A.Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.''
6.In this event, in general, if the title is disputed by any party, that can be decided only in Civil Court. In our case, Document No.1, Sale Deed annexed in the typed set of papers create a prima facie case that the petitioners herein are having right over the property mentioned in S.F.No.203/4. So, the said aspect was clearly mentioned by the petitioners in the reply notice sent to the first respondent. Thereafter, without considering the said aspect and without conducting any enquiry, the first respondent herein issued the impugned proceedings, dated 17.05.2013. So, the action of the first respondent is not justifiable.
7.Further, in the case of Ramachandra Malojirao Bhonsale Vs. Rasikbhai Govardhanbhai Raiyani and others reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 866, it has been held that provisions of Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used for settlement of disputes between the
private parties. Such provisions can be used only for settlement of dispute in relation to public right in the general interest of the public at large. If the dispute affects one individual but not the public at large, the jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be exercised.
8.In view of the above decision cited supra and discussion, the proceedings dated 17.05.2013, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.05.2013, is quashed. Consequently Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay Post, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to M/S.J.JOHN JAYAKUMAR, Advocate SR.No.41914. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8527 of 2013 11.01.2018 smn2 SDS/SV:MMS/SAR 4/22.01.2018/3P/4C