The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.14705 of 2007 Dated 30th June, 2010 Between: Peddireddy Srihari Reddy and others …Petitioners And The Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Mangalagiri, Guntur District & another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.B.Chinnapa Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.K.S.Murthy The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Prohibition to restrain respondent No.1 from proceeding with M.C.No.8 of 2007 initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’). The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, are as under: The petitioners have purchased a part of the property originally owned by one Bolla Subba Reddy from one Annapareddy Anjamma, who was legatee under a will executed by the said Bolla Subba Reddy, in the year 1971. Respondent No.2 also purchased another piece of property from one Pamidimukkala Srinivasa Rao. The said Srinivasa Rao had earlier purchased the property from Bathula brothers, who are stated to have inherited the same from their mother Smt.Sakuntala, purchaser from Bolla Subba Reddy. As the properties purchased by these parties are located adjacent to each other, disputes arose between them. Before Bathula Brothers sold the property to Pamidimukkala Srinivasa Rao, who is the predecessor in title of respondent No.2, the petitioners filed O.S.No.7 of 2005 against Bathula brothers on 18-01- 2005. The said Bathula brothers sold the property to Pamidimukkala Srinivasa Rao on 03-06-2005. On 14-11- 2005, an ex parte decree was passed in O.S.No.7 of 2005 in favour of the petitioners by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Prior to the filing of the said suit, Bathula brothers filed O.S.No.238 of 2004, which was dismissed for default by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, on 22-11-2006. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of the property in question and their possession is protected by decree for injunction granted in OS.No.7 of 2005. Respondent No.2, however, pleaded that prior to the petitioners obtaining decree against Bathula brothers, his predecessor in title viz., Pamidimukkala Srinivasa Rao applied for fixation of boundaries under the A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and that a survey report was obtained on 19-01- 2005 from the competent authority, according to which, the property in question falls within the boundaries of the property purchased by the said Pamidimukkala Srinivasa Rao. In view of the serious disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2, respondent No.1 had initiated the above proceedings obviously to prevent breach of peace. Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that in the face of the decree for injunction obtained by the petitioners, respondent No.1 ought not to have initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., as the same would render the decree obtained by the petitioners ineffective. He further submitted that respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to overcome the decree obtained against his predecessors in title even before the property was purchased by him by getting the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., initiated. Opposing the above contentions, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that his client is a subsequent purchaser and that he was neither a party to O.S.No.7 of 2005 filed by the petitioners nor was aware of the said suit or decree passed therein. He placed heavy reliance on survey report, dated 19-01- 2005, prepared by the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Guntur, in support of his contention that the property in question falls within the boundaries of the property purchased by respondent No.2 and as the petitioners were forcibly entering the said property leading to breach of public peace, respondent No.1 has rightly initiated the impugned proceedings. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The law is well settled that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., are initiated with the sole object of preserving public peace when disputes over immovable properties arise. Under the said proceedings, the Executive Magistrate is empowered to render a finding as to which party is in actual possession of the property and whether the party, who was in possession, was forcibly dispossessed within two months preceding the initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. If the Executive Magistrate is satisfied that such a dispossession has taken place, he is empowered to restore possession of the property to the party, who was so dispossessed. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have obtained a decree for injunction on 14- 11-2005 against Bathula brothers. Respondent No.2 is a second purchaser thereafter. It is also not in dispute that OS.No.238 of 2004 filed by Bathula brothers in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, was dismissed for default on 22-11-2006. In the face of these admitted facts, I am of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for respondent No.2 is to approach the competent civil Court and claim suitable relief. The nature of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., being purely transitory in order to see that the public peace in the area is preserved till the rights of the parties are adjudicated through a competent Court of law and such proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 having been stayed by this Court, the relevancy of such proceedings is lost by efflux of time. In this view of the matter, no purpose will be served by permitting respondent No.1 to resume proceedings, which were stayed by this Court as far back as 12-07-2007. Instead, interests of parties would be better served, if the competent civil Court decides their respective rights over the property in dispute. As the petitioners have already obtained a decree for injunction, and respondent No.2 is placing heavy reliance on the survey report referred to above, it would be appropriate that respondent No.2 approaches the Court of competent jurisdiction for claiming necessary relief. In order to enable him to avail such a remedy, the parties are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today with respect to the disputed property in all respects for a period of three months from today. It is made clear that if any opinion is expressed by this Court on merits in this Writ Petition, the same shall not influence the decision of the competent Court in the proceedings that may be initiated by respondent No.2. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., initiated by respondent No.1 are quashed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th June, 2010 lur