THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2018 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 25.08.2010, passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, in proceedings No.B/397/2010 in M.C.No.B/180/1978, dated 15.03.1982, whereby he called for a report from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tappachabutra Police Station, Hyderabad, with regard to the status of the disputed property including any law and order problem prevailing at the disputed site. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the petition, are that the first petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of portion of the house bearing municipal No.9-4-79/3, part and parcel of Survey No.284/6, admeasuring 506 square yards situated at Nanal Nagar, Guddimalkapur Village, Hyderabad and the second petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the southern portion of house bearing municipal No.9-4-79/3, part and parcel of Survey No.284/6, admeasuring 920 square yards situated at Nanal Nagar, Guddimalkapur Village, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds and that the petitioners are in actual and physical possession of their respective properties. While so, the fourth respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, Langer House Police Station, Hyderabad, started enquiry under the guise of the orders passed by the second respondent-Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad and further, the third respondent with the help of the fourth respondent is making attempts to dispossess the petitioners from the above said properties; that the third respondent, who is no way concerned with the said properties of the petitioners, managed the second respondent to enquire into the matter including the law and order problem at the site under the guise of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which were initiated about 28 years back; that the second respondent has no power or authority to direct the fourth respondent to enquire into the matter and he became functus officio since the said proceedings were closed way back on 15.03.1982. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that at no point of time, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been initiated and the petitioners are not aware of any such proceedings. It is his further submission that even if it is accepted, though not conceded, that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been initiated in the year 1982 and an order is passed, the Special Executive Magistrate, who is the second respondent herein, has become functus officio and as such, he cannot pass an order like the one which is impugned in this Revision. Per contra, Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been initiated and a detailed order was passed by the then Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad in M.C.No.B/180/1978 on 15.03.1982, wherein the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the third respondent herein and two others are only entitled to maintain their possession over the disputed land under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. until they are evicted from there under due process of law and further, prohibited any disturbance of such possession since not only respondents 1 to 3 therein were in possession of the suit land on the date of passing of the preliminary order passed by the said Court on 19.10.1978, but also their possession is established right from 1966 onwards and that the said order was confirmed by the Revisional Court. It is his further submission that the order which is impugned in this Revision is only calling for a report from the Police concerned and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioners herein are prohibited or forbidden from entering into the subject lands. It is his further submission that already separate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been initiated in Mc.B/397/2010, dated 24.11.2010 and the notice also has been served on the petitioners and hence, if the petitioners have any grievance they can as well approach the Special Executive Magistrate and file a detailed reply. In the light of the controversy, this Court looked into the material papers on record in detail. Apparently, there are serious land disputes between the parties and in that context, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been initiated, a preliminary order was passed under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. on 19.10.1978 and a final order was also passed on 15.03.1982. When once the final order is passed and the same is confirmed by a Revisional Court, in my considered view the Special Executive Magistrate ought not to have reopened the matter afresh for the reason that he has become functus officio. If there is any necessity of the report as provided for under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can initiate separate proceedings afresh, but cannot reopen the said proceedings which have been initiated long ago and culminated as early as on 15.03.1982. In those circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the proceedings No.B/397/2010, dated 25.08.2010 in M.C.No.B/180/1978, dated 15.03.1982 is absolutely illegal and unwarranted. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned proceedings are hereby quashed. As it is the representation of the learned counsel for the respondents that separate proceedings have already been initiated, it is for the appropriate authority to pass any orders if the law permits. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 11th February 2011 DR