1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.320 of 1997 Govindrao Madhavrao Patil, Zarikar, since deceased, Ex Chairman of the Shahajinagar Housing Society, Degloor, Now, Umesh Govindrao Patil is the Chairman of Shahajinagar Housing Society, Degloor and is authorised by the society, to prosecute the legal proceedings, instead of Govindrao Madhavrao Patil Zarikar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Shri Chandoba s/o Vitthalrao Rajurkar, age major, r/o Degloor, District Nanded. and nine others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. H.V.Patil, Adv., h/f Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R.Korde, APP for respondent State/R.10. Mr. S.V.Warad, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 5 & 7 to 9. Dismissed against respondent no.6. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:25/8/2009 ... 2 P.C.: 1. A proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. in respect of open space in land survey No.192 situated at Degloor was initiated and by order dt. 28.10.1988 learned Taluka Executive Magistrate directed to take the open space under Government supervision and that it should be released in favour of party no.2. It was subject of challenge in Criminal Revision No.29/1993 (new). Learned Additional Sessions Judge at Biloli dismissed the revision moved by party no.1 Govind M.Zarikar. 2. During the course of submissions, it was informed that there is civil dispute and Second Appeal is pending, however, no record produced. The party no.1 ( revision petitioner) did not produce any evidence to show that the land belonged to them or they were in possession thereof, or the society was in possession of the same. On the other hand, it was established that the party no.2 was occupying the same and was in enjoyment. It may be that the persons belonging to the group of party no.2 had encroached over the land owned by the housing society but there was no evidence produced by the housing society ( G.M.Zarikar). The controversy before the Taluka Magistrate was under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and he was required to ascertain, who was immediately in possession before two months of the dispute. Since there was documentary evidence of 3 party no.2, in the form of sale deeds, coupled with the record, there was no illegality on the part of the learned Executive Magistrate to retain possession with party no.2. It is apparent, on the date of commencing proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. party no.2 was in possession of the disputed property. The parties are at liberty to resolve their controversy by independent proceedings. Consequently, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/320-97crwp ...