1 Cri.WP No.247/2011 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.247/2011 ( Varsha d/o Milind Vaidya Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. PN Sonpethkar, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. SB Pulkundwar, APP for State. Mr.NS Ghanekar, Adv. For Resp.No.2. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 13 th JUNE, 2011. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) The order of learned Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, dated 17th March, 2011, whereby possession of flat No.C­11 was taken by the State, is questioned by the petitioner. 3) Petitioner Smt. Varsha, executed a sale­deed in favour of – Respondent No.2 Ravindrasing in respect of the said property. – However, she sought time to deliver possession and dodge the same, as is recorded in the statement of Respondent No.2 before the police authorities. 4) Since there was breach to the public order and apprehension, proceedings in terms of Section 145 Cr.P.C were initiated. The proceedings were questioned by the petitioner Smt. Varsha before the learned then Sessions Judge at Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.126/2007, which came to be terminated by order dated 22.3.2010, rejecting the revision and upholding the order of the Executive Magistrate. It was, thereafter the impugned notice came to be issued and possession was taken. 5) It is apparent from the record that the petitioner Smt. Varsha lost her civil suit being RCS No.65/2006, in which, she had 2 Cri.WP No.247/2011 sought an injunction. Exhibit­5 of the said proceeding was terminated against her and thereafter the suit also stood dismissed. No appeal as yet is preferred. 6) Shri Sonpethkar has placed reliance to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ranbir Singh Vs. Dalbir Singh and Ors.(Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2002. On perusal of the above judgment, I do not see that it would advance contentions as coined by Mr.Sonpethkar. 7) Considering above aspects of the matter, I do not see any illegality in the order of the learned Executive Magistrate dated 17.3.2011 to take possession of the property with the State. Needless to indicate, this is interim arrangement, it would not be deciding rights of the parties. 8) Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/