HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 7504 of 2007 Date: 23-04-2010 Between: Amaladasu Subba Rao ……….. Petitioner and The State of A.P. and others ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 7504 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal petition has been filed to quash the proceedings, dated 10-12-2007 passed in M.C.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrachalam (hereinafter referred to as “lower authority”). 2. The petitioner herein is the sole respondent and the respondents 2 to 6 herein are the complainants before the lower authority. Holding that both the parties are likely to cause breach of peace in view of the dispute with regard to the land in R.S.No.31/2 and R.S.No.73 covering to an extent of Ac.1-00 and Ac.6-20 cents respectively situated in Kasinagaram village, the lower authority issued proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and further directed the Tahsildar, Dummugudem, to take custody of the standing crop and harvest it to keep it in his custody till the completion of the enquiry. 3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe community and that he purchased the disputed land in the year 2003 from the original owner Ramchander Rao, on payment of Rs.1,74,000/- on 26- 04-2003, by way of registered sale deed and that since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land by raising agricultural crops. It is further submitted that after purchasing the land, the petitioner came to know that LTR proceedings were initiated in respect of the land, without giving notice to the original owner, and therefore, he filed W.P.No.21554 of 2003 before this Court and this Court admitted the writ petition and directed the respondents to maintain status quo, through the order, dated 01-10-2003 and that the writ petition has been still pending before this Court and in the meantime the petitioner applied for pattedar passbook and title deeds to the revenue authorities and since respondents 2 to 6 were trying to interfere with the possession, he filed suit in O.S.No.213 of 2007 on the file of the Special Assistant Agent & Sub divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam (hereinafter referred to as ‘Agency Court’) for permanent injunction and the same was decreed on 20-09-2007 and that the petitioner obtained police aid from the same Court on 13-11-2007. It is further submitted that the respondents 2 to 6, suppressing of the above facts, approached the lower Authority. 4. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lower authority has passed the orders under Sections 145 and 146 (1) of Cr.P.C. simultaneously in the same order and it is illegal. It is also submitted that when once a Civil Court has granted a decree in favour of the petitioner and ordered police protection, the lower authority was not justified in issuing proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 5. The documents filed by the petitioner prima facie show that a decree had been passed in O.S.No.213 of 2007 by the Agency Court in favour of the petitioner and against Respondents 2 to 6 in respect of the disputed property and that the Station House Officer, P.S. Dummagudem, Khammam District, was also directed to give police protection to the petitioner in E.P.No.44 of 2007 by the order, dated 13-11-2007, by the same court. 6. As seen from the above orders, the decree granting injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner and against respondents 2 to 6 and moreover, the petitioner was also granted police protection and this prima facie shows that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land when the proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The lower authority, which passed the impugned order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., did not specifically state as to who is in possession of the property and without deciding the same, and in contra to the earlier orders, directed the Tahsildar to harvest the crop and take possession and this prima facie appears to be illegal. 7. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in M.C.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Collector-cum- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrachalam, are hereby quashed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 23-04-2010 YCR