HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1689 of 2010 DATE:29.12.2010 Between: Chendupatla Sudershana …… Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor and 2 others. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1689 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed questioning order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate of Hanamkonda Mandal in Rc.No.D/1447/2010 by which in exercise of power under Section 145 Cr.P.C, the Executive Magistrate ordered that nobody should enter into the disputed land in S.Nos.277/A1, A2 and A3 of Laskar Singaram Village until ownership of the land is decided by competent Court of law. 2) The impugned order is ex facie illegal. The Executive Magistrate without even looking into the provisions contained under Section 145 Cr.P.C, passed the impugned order in erroneous manner. When the 3rd respondent filed a petition before the Executive Magistrate, the Magistrate is stated to have visited the spot where both the parties started arguing with each other. Thereupon he came to the conclusion that there is every possibility of disturbance to piece and tranquillity in the area. The said Erra Shobhan Babu previously filed O.S. No.722 of 2004 in the Junior Civil Judge Court at Warangal. It is stated to have been decreed exparte and thereafter, the exparte decree is stated to have been set aside. The said suit O.S. No.722 of 2004 was filed against Erra Ilayya and Chada Bapu Reddy. The revision petitioner is not a party to that suit. 3) Section 145 Cr.P.C does not contemplate passing of an order restraining all the parties from entering into the disputed land, straight away, without notice to the parties in dispute and without receiving written statements from the parties in dispute and without making enquiry into the dispute. Enquiry contemplated in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C is equivalent to a trial of a summons case by a criminal Court under Cr.P.C. Without following due procedure prescribed by law, the Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 4) Secondly, there is no back ground for the litigation between the parties in relation to the disputed land. When the 3rd respondent put in a petition and when the Magistrate made a spot inspection when there was argument between the two parties, the Magistrate should not have concluded that there is likelihood of disturbance to the piece and tranquillity in the area. There is absolutely no basis for the said finding in the facts which were narrated in the impugned order. 5) The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Beeravolu Madan Mohan Reddy V. Sub-Divisional Magistrate[1] and contended that the procedure as enunciated therein and as contemplated under Section 145 Cr.P.C was not followed by the Magistrate. There can be no dispute about the fact that the Magistrate did not even apply his mind into the procedure to be followed prior to invoking his jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 6) In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Hanamkonda Mandal. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:28.12.2010. ksh [1] 1998(2) ALT (Crl.) 283 (D.B)(A.P)