IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 603 of 2002 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgement in NO : dated ______ on the file of the Court of the ,preferred against the order in PROC A5 2249 2001 dated ______ on the file of the Court of the ) Between: Mohd.Mazharuddin (died) per L.Rs. and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri Baddi Post Lingam and others ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ANANDAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.603 OF 2002 ORDER: This revision, under Section 397(1) read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the proceedings No.A5/2249/2001, dated 16.05.2002, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy. The second party in the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate filed the present revision. By virtue of the impugned order dated 16.05.2002, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemgal, was directed to release and hand over the attached disputed piece of land admeasuring 27 X 45 feet in Survey No.578 of Bheemgal Village to the first party i.e., the first respondent herein. Challenging the same the present revision petition is filed. 2) Heard both sides. 3) Admittedly, the first party filed a suit in O.S.No.183 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Armoor against the second party seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the said piece of land in Survey No.578 of Bheemgal Village. Originally the said suit was decreed vide Judgment dated 03.12.1992 in favour of the first party. Challenging the same the father of the second party filed A.S.No.13 of 1992 on the file of the District Judge, Nizamabad. The said appeal was allowed setting aside the decree and Judgment of trial Court vide Judgment dated 10.06.1996. There upon first party, who is the first respondent herein, filed S.A.No.354 of 1996 before this Court, which was allowed vide Judgment dated 29.10.1998 remanding the case to the lower Appellate Court with a direction to examine the issue as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property and entitled for injunction. On remand, the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 31.12.1999 by setting aside the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.183 of 1981. Thereafter, S.A.No.310 of 2000 was filed by the first party before this Court and this Court by its Judgment dated 21.04.2000 dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law was involved. 4) There cannot be any dispute that under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied with the report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace 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 disputes to attend his Court in person or by a pleader, on a specified date and time. The Executive Magistrate can exercise the powers under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. in passing the order when there is a breach of peace affecting the public tranquillity or when there exists a dispute between two parties and because of the acts of both parties the public peace is being affected, then the Executive Magistrate can pass the order. As seen from the impugned order no reasons are assigned as to how and in what manner the public peace or tranquillity is likely to cause a breach of peace with regard to the dispute between the first party and second party. 5) Therefore, incidentally the Executive Magistrate has decided as to who was in the possession of the property, but, at the same time unless he comes to a prima facie opinion that there is a likelihood of breach of peace, he cannot decide who is in the possession of the property. Therefore, the order is not in accordance with law and, therefore, it is an illegal order. Hence, the impugned order is set aside leaving the remedies open to the parties under law. 6) Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ________________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 07.09.2009 MD