Elumalai Maistry and others vs Sermakani

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This petition is filed by the counter petitioners in M.C. No. 3 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Trivellore, to quash the proceedings under S.145 Crl. P.C., pending before the Sob-Divisional Magistrate, Trivellore. It is seen from the grounds alleged in the petition and the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Magistrate while passing the order under S. 145(1), Crl. P.C., failed to state the grounds for satisfaction and that he has passed the order without verifying the materials for the said order and as such the order is illegal and liable to be set aside. Further, the lands in dispute are poromboke lands of the Government and they do not belong to the petitioner.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioners herein is that the Magistrate has not written a detailed order after holding an enquiry and setting out the reasons for his satisfaction that the dispute concerning the subject matter of the petition is likely to cause breach of peace. In support of the same, the Learned Counsel relied on the provisions of S. 145(1), Crl. P.C., wherein it is stated as follows :

Whenever an executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Karpaga Vinayagam, submitted that in the instant case the learned Magistrate passed the order on the basis of the report accompanied with the statements of witnesses and other revenue records received from police and also on the basis of the petition filed by the respond e fit and after satisfying himself that there is a likelihood of breach of peace between the petitioners and the respondent in respect of the subject matter, namely, the land in question, he passed the order under S. 145(1) Crl. P.C., and that he is not bound to write a judgment as contended by the petitioners. In the instant case, it is worthwhile to extract the order passed by the learned Magistrate for proper appreciation of the respective contentions of both the parties.

Whereas it has been made to appear to me by the petitioners that the counter petitioners are threatening to enter upon the lands mentioned below unlawfully and the petitioner apprehends that the counter-petitioners are likely to cause breach of peace.

District Taluk Village S. No. Extent

Chengal- Tiruval- Perum- 230 0-02-1.5 out of

puttu lur bakkam 0.64

230 855 sq. ft out and of

0.14

And whereas I am satisfied from the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Trivellore Town, that there is a dispute with regard to the iands referred to above in Perumbakkam village, situated within the local limits of my jurisdiction which is likely to cause breach of peace.

I, Thiru D. Arul Thiagarajan, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Trivellore, do hereby require you, the counter petitioner to apnear before me in person or by Pleader on 4-7-1986 at 11 a.m. at the Sub Divisional Magistrate Office, Trivellore, and file written statement or your claim as to the fact of possession of the lands which is the subject of the dispute actual.

It may be noted that a similar question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. In R.H. Bhutani v. Mani A.l.R. 1968 S.C 1444. Desai, J. it was held

The satisfaction under sub-S (1) of S.145 is of the Magistrate. The question whether on the materials before him, he should initiate proceedings or not is therefore in his discretion which, no doubt has to be exercised in accordance with well recognised rules of law in that behalf. No hard and fast rule can therefore, be laid down as to the sufficiency of material for his satisfaction. The language of the sub-section is clear and unambiguous that he can arrive at his satisfaction, both from the police report or ''from other information'' which must include an application by the party dispossessed. The High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not go into the question of sufficiency of material which has satisfied the Magistrate.

In Rajpati Vs. Bachan and Another, , their Lordships observed as follows :

Further, it is well settled that under S.145, it is for the Magistrate to be satisfied regarding the existence of a breach of the peace and once he records his satisfaction in the preliminary order, the High Court in revision cannot go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials on the basis bf which the satisfaction of the Magistrate is based.

In Manikyaraj Ballal v. Jayaraja Balla 1981 L.W. Crl. 10, it was held

As the satisfaction of the executive Magistrate about the existence of a dispute for passing the preliminary order is a subjective one, the Magistrate is not required to go into an elaborate, protracted and groping enquiry or investigation, since such an enquiry may in many instances defeat the very object of the proceedings which are taken for an effective prevention of the breach of the peace.

In Ashrafi Lal v. Labh Singh 1981 Cri. L.J. 1172, it was Held

S. 145(1) Crl.P.C, requires that the Magistrate should state grounds of his satisfaction that a dispute exists concerning any land or water or boundaries thereof which is likely to cause a breach of the peace. Those grounds are (a) a report of a police officer, or (b) other information. He need not state any facts beyond those identifying the property and the parties. Ground means foundation or basis'' and the foundation or basis of satisfaction is either the police report or other information.

On going through the provision of S.145(1), Crl.P.C., end the ratio laid down in the above decisions, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Magistrate should write a detailed order giving the reason for his satisfaction, like a judgment, after holding an enquiry. The said provision only requires the Magistrate to state the grounds of his satisfaction regarding the existence, of dispute concerning any land and that it is likely to cause-breach of peace. The very object of the proceedings would be defeated if he embarks on a detailed enquiry and writes an order as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case on going through the order. I find that the grounds of satisfaction of the Magistrate is based on the petition given by the respondent herein and the report of the Sub-Inspector of Trivellore town which was palled for by him. From these two records, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that action under S.145, Crl.P.C., is necessary in view, of the fact that there is dispute with regard, to the lands referred to in the order and that it is likely to cause breach of peace. The question whether the disputed land is a patta land or a poromboke land is a matter to be decided during enquiry on the basis of the oral, and documentary evidence to be adduced by both the parties and it is not possible to give any finding in this order.

For all these reasons, I am of the view that the preliminary order passed under S.145, Crl. P.C., by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Trivellore, is perfectly legal and in any event it cannot be said to be illegal. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.