*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU + CRIMINAL PETITION No.8006 of 2009 % Dated: 13-12-2011 # Jillela Bhupal Reddy & another. … Petitioners VERSUS $ The State rep., by the Mandal Executive Magistrate Nandyal, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Veera Reddy ^ Counsel for respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. 1974 (1) ANWR 76 2. 1995 (3) ALD 305 3. AIR 1985 SC 472 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8006 of 2009 Between: Jillela Bhupal Reddy & another. … Petitioners And The State rep., by the Mandal Executive Magistrate Nandyal, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8006 of 2009 ORDER:- This criminal petition arises out of order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nandyal, dated 16.09.2009, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. directing persons belonging to A party and B party not to enter into the disputed land of Ac.7.75 cents in Sy.No.25-A1 of Chapirevula village until further orders or until disposal of the case by the civil Court. The petitioners 1 and 2 are No.s 1 and 2 of B party. The respondents 2 and 3 are No.s 1 and 2 of A party. Both the parties claim title to the disputed land on the basis of registered documents in their favour executed by the respective vendors. The petitioners filed O.S.No.179 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction in respect of the lands against the respondents and others. The respondents also filed O.S.No.119 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against the petitioners for permanent injunction. I.A.No.480 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners herein in O.S.No.179 of 2008 for temporary injunction. The civil Court passed ex parte status quo order in that injunction petition. After contest, final order was passed in I.A.No.480 of 2008 by the civil Court allowing the said petition confirming status quo order. The said order has become final. None of the parties took the matter in appeal to the appellate Court. It is the said status quo order, which added fuel to the situation. A status quo order is neither a positive order nor a negative order. Many times, it becomes no order at all. While granting status quo, a Court is expected to give a definite finding as to which of the two parties was in actual possession and to maintain the said actual possession status quo may be granted. But without giving a definite finding as to possession, granting status quo order will add further confusion to the situation. Many times it leads to scramble for possession, resulting in law and order problem. Usually, when the Executive fails in its duty, the Judiciary steps into the arena and remedies the situation. Unfortunately, in this case the lower judiciary has failed in discharging its duty and therefore the Executive Magistrate has entered into the arena to rectify and to pacify the law and order problem arising out of the said status quo order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. As laid down in Bodapati Kondayya vs. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Amalapuram, East Godavari District[1] pendency of civil suit on the subject matter is no bar for the Executive Magistrate to pass an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In similar situation, wherein the civil Court miserably failed in its duty to give a finding regarding possession and passed status quo order, this Court had another occasion in G. Sudershan Reddy vs. Jeevan Latha Srivasthava[2] to consider the situation and to remedy the situation by upholding the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State of U.P.[3] of the Supreme Court that the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Even though in the case on hand both the parties have approached the civil Court, the civil Court did not raise to the occasion and give any definite finding or positive order with regard to maintaining possession of the disputed land with one of the two contesting parties. Surprisingly, none of the two contesting parties approached any appellate civil Court against the final status quo orders passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. It shows attitude of both the parties to the effect that both of them wanted to finalize their dispute on field instead of inside Court. In the said situation, the Mandal Executive Magistrate rightly stepped into the field and passed the impugned order. No doubt, the Mandal Executive Magistrate cannot pass the impugned order as final order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It can be only an interim order pending further enquiry before the Mandal Executive Magistrate. When questioned by this Court, both the counsel stated that their respective parties are in possession of the land till now and raised the crop therein. As the matter now stands, the Mandal Executive Magistrate directed the Revenue Inspector to go to the land and to get the standing crop in the land harvested and keep the said harvested crop in his custody until further orders. The stands of both the parties reveal that there is scramble for possession between the two parties and that there is every likelihood of breach of peace and tranquillity in the vicinity because of this dispute. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate is appropriate and legal. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed, but directing the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nandyal, to make further enquiry into the matter in accordance with Section 145 Cr.P.C. and pass final orders therein. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 13.12.2011 ES LR copies to be marked. [1] 1974 (1) ANWR 76 [2] 1995 (3) ALD 305 [3] AIR 1985 SC 472