IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2010 THE FABRICA DE IGREJA DA ORLIM THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY MR. FRANCISCO RODRIGUES ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE P.I AND ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da'costa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 and 2. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 6th July, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 24.6.2010 of the learned Deputy Collector, Margao, passed in proceeding which were initiated under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973( Code, for short) 3. There is no dispute that the survey no. 86/20 belongs to the petitioner herein. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 claim a right of way which according to the said respondents was subsequently acquired by the Government. In proceedings which were initiated under section 145(1) of the Code, it appears that no order has been made so far converting the said proceedings from section 145 into proceedings under section 147 of the Code though such a power is available to the Deputy Collector in terms of sub section (4) of section 147 of the Code. 4. The Deputy Collector is at liberty to convert the proceedings initiated by him under section 145 into proceedings under section 147 after hearing both the parties and if facts warrant such conversion. Another grievance made on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of injunction dated 24.6.2010 was made without hearing the petitioner. This is contested by respondent nos. 3 and 4. 5. Another submission made by Shri Costa Frias is that the Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to pass any interim Orders either under section 145 or 147 of the Code. This position is also contested by Shri Usgaonkar appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. 6. Shri Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has made a statement that although a part of the property of the present petitioners was acquired, no possession was taken pursuant to the award dated 24.12.1999. 7. Considering the facts of the case the following order is passed:- a. Impugned Order is hereby set aside. b. The learned Deputy Collector is hereby directed to hear both the parties and pass an appropriate orders whether the proceedings are required to be converted from section 145 to section 147 of the Code. Likewise, the Deputy Collector is hereby directed to consider passing a fresh interim Order after hearing both the parties. c. All issues are kept open. d. Order regarding conversion of proceedings from section 145 to section 147 of the Code and granting of temporary injunction or not to be passed within two weeks. 8. Both the parties to appear before the Deputy Collector on 8.7.2010 instant at 2.30p.m. 9. Consequently the impugned order dated 24.6.2010 is hereby set aside. 10. All contentions are kept open. The contention whether there was existing road prior to acquisition is also kept open. 11. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that they have filed an application for transfer of the present proceedings from the present Deputy Collector to another. The said application for transfer can be independently decided by the Collector. 12. In case any interim order is passed by the Deputy Collector the same shall not be implemented by him for a week. 13. With the above observations and directions the writ petition disposed off accordingly. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn