IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10964 OF 2010 Between:- Paruchuri Siva Ramprasad …Petitioner A n d The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bodhan P.S., Nizamabad District and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10964 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 22-10-2010 in proceedings bearing No.A4/2672/2010 issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C., whereunder the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhodan directed attachment of the land in question together with the standing crop in Sy.No.207/AA to an extent of Ac.2-24 gts and Sy.No.210/E1 to an extent of Ac.0-27 gts situate in Pentakurd village and further directed the Tahasildar to take possession of the land and the standing crop into his custody. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. Third respondent herein is impleaded by order dated 24-11-2010 in Crl.M.P.No.10379 of 2010 4. The petitioner is brother of third respondent. The petitioner filed O.S.No.48 of 2010 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, for declaration of title and for cancellation of gift deed executed by his father in favour of the third respondent. He claims to be in possession of the schedule land and cultivating the same for the last 15 years. According to him, the schedule land is ancestral property and he is also having a share therein. He alleges that the gift deed executed by his father in favour of the third respondent is fabricated. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders were issued mechanically, without any application of mind as a result of which the petitioner, who is in possession of the schedule land and raised the crop thereon, is facing threat of dispossession. 5. The third respondent would contend that she is the owner, pattadar and possessor of the schedule land by virtue of registered gift deed dated 18-01-1999 executed by her father in her favour and that mutation was also effected in her name on 15-09-2003. She would further contend that with a view to grab the schedule land, the petitioner filed O.S.No.48 of 2010 and also filed I.A.No.251 of 2010 for grant of temporary injunction and the said petition was dismissed on 01-10-2010. She further alleges that thereafter the petitioner attempted to take away the crop by resorting to breach of peace along with his followers and a case in Cr.No.400 of 2010 was registered by Bodhan Police suo motu on 21-10-2010 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. She would, therefore, contend that as a rightful owner in possession she raised the crop and the petitioner resorted to acts amounting to breach of peace necessitating the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to pass the impugned order. 6. Prima facie, the third respondent claims title to the schedule land by virtue of a gift deed said to have been executed by her father in 1999. It is not disputed that the land was also mutated in the name of the third respondent in the revenue records on 15-09-2003. The pattadar pass book and copies of pahanies filed by the third respondent by way of additional material papers also show that the land was registered in the revenue records in the name of the third respondent. It is only in 2010 that the petitioner filed O.S.No.48 of 2010 seeking declaration of title and also for cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 18- 01-1999 in favour of the third respondent and for permanent injunction. It is not disputed that the petitioner filed I.A.No.251 of 2010 for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the same was contested by the third respondent herein. By a detailed and reasoned order dated 01-10-2010, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan dismissed the said application holding that the petitioner herein is not shown to be in possession of the scheduled land and there is no prima facie case nor balance of convenience in his favour. Thus, the civil court also prima facie found that the petitioner was not shown to be in possession of schedule land. 7. The impugned orders shows that the petitioner has been cultivating the land previously on koul basis, having taken the same from the third respondent, but this year the third respondent made her own arrangement for raising the paddy and soya crop and the petitioner has been causing obstruction to her and claiming that he is the owner of the land. The impugned order shows that on being satisfied about the likelihood of breach of peace on account of rival claims over the schedule land, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed attachment of the land and standing crop with a further direction to Tahasildhar, Bodhan to take the land and crop into his custody as a receiver. However, as the dispute is seized by a Civil Court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not competent to grant any relief that may be granted by the Civil Court in the pending suit. The scope of the order that may be passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C is very limited and the same cannot override the powers of the Civil Court or the reliefs that may be granted by the Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court regarding the same subject matter are binding on the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the name of preventing the apprehended breach of peace, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot pass any order adversely affecting the rights of the parties, who are litigating before the Civil Court. The impugned order directing attachment of the schedule land with the crop thereon and appointing the Tahasildar as receiver to take possession of the land and crop, would certainly affect the rights of the third respondent, whose claim of possession has been prima facie upheld by the Civil Court, while negativing the rival claims putforward by the petitioner. Attachment of land and appointment of receiver in respect of the schedule land and the crop thereon is, therefore, uncalled for in view of the orders passed by the Civil Court dismissing I.A.No.251 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.48 of 2010. It is open to the parties to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs in the pending suit. The impugned orders are, therefore, held unsustainable and hence liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th November, 2010 Lrkm.