AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.—The main petition is filed u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for records of M.C. No. 1 of 1994 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer and Executive Magistrate, Bantumilli and to quash the same. The order, which is impugned in these proceedings, is passed in M.C. No. 1 of 1994 dated 4-1-1994. Now the arguments reveal that there was a long history of civil litigation regarding this property. According to the petitioners, the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated proceedings u/s 145 of Criminal Procedure Code when civil litigation was pending in O.S. No. 51 of 1993, which was filed on 3-7-1993. According to the contesting respondents, the land was acquired and Section 4 notification was issued on 2-1-1993 and award was passed on 27-3-1993 and possession was taken by the Government on 20-4-1993 and subsequently, pattas were distributed on 25-5-1993 and on 26-5-1993, possession was also handed over to the grantees of the pattas. From the arguments of the petitioners'' counsel, it is quite clear that the said O.S. No. 51 of 1993 was commenced on 3-7-1993 and they obtained an interim injunction. Subsequently, the interim injunction was made absolute after contesting on 28-8-1993. Aggrieved by the same, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed and a petition for suspension of the injunction was filed on 30-11-1993. As against that, a Civil Revision Petition has been filed and an interim order was obtained for a period of six weeks on 20-12-1993. During the period of six weeks, the present proceedings u/s 145 of Criminal Procedure Code were initiated. It is crystal clear that the Executive Magistrate initiated the proceedings while the civil disputes appending between the parties. He has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 145 of Criminal Procedure Code when the civil Courts are already seized of the matter. In this view of the matter, the Criminal Petition No. 95 of 1994 has necessarily to be allowed, and the proceedings in M.C. No. 1 of 1994 are quashed.
As regards Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 68 of 1994 and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 711 of 1994 to vacate the interim stay, it maybe stated that in view of the main proceedings being quashed, no elaborate orders are needed in these two petitions. It is open to both the parties to approach the civil Court and obtain necessary orders to protect their rights. The tendency to utilise the powers of the Executive Magistrate to interfere with the rights of the parties while the civil proceedings are pending is deprecated. These two petitions are closed.