THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9552 of 2011 ORDER:
1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in File No.L/1217/2010 on the file of Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad.
2 The facts leading to the filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows:
3 The Inspector of Police, Pahadishareef submitted a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District stating that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of the land in Sy.No.27 B (old), New Sy.No.438 & 17 (old), 74 and 75 (New) situated at Kongarakurdu village. Basing on the said complaint, the RDO passed preliminary order on 27.03.2010 as follows:
“It is hereby ordered, that the disputed place i.e.
erecting of kadies in Sy.No.27 B (old), New Sy.No.438 & 17 (old), 74 and 75 (New) situated at Kongarakurdu village is to be taken over possession by the Tahsildar, Maheswaram Mandal immediately till the dispute is settled under appropriate Court of Law.”
4 Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the RDO, dated 27.03.2010, the petitioner herein filed Crl.R.C.No.1868 of 2010 and the same was disposed of by this Court, on 12.10.2010, with the following observations:
“The order impugned in this revision is dated 27.03.2010 whereby the petitioners herein are prohibited from entering into the land in question. Apparently, the said order is passed under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and any order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. shall be in force only for a period of six months. As the order impugned in this revision is dated 27.03.2010, which came to end by 27.09.2010, this revision has become infructuous.”
5 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6 A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.119 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy for perpetual injunction. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the civil Court granted interim order in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.74 of 2010 in the said suit on 12.07.2010. He further submitted that being aggrieved by the said interim order, the respondents 3 and 4 herein filed CMA No.81 of 2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. But the said CMA was dismissed.
7 At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District is not disposing of the matter, but, is simply adjourning the same.
8 There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the preliminary order passed on 27.03.2010 under Section 144 Cr.P.C. by the RDO will be in force only for a period of six months.
9 It is the duty of the RDO to dispose of the matter as early as possible in view of the civil disputes existing between the parties. The matter is pending for more than four years. The parties may face much difficulty to attend before the RDO frequently. If this Court expresses any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, the same may effect the rights of the parties to the dispute. Hence this Court is not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. However, the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District is hereby directed to dispose of the proceedings in File No.L/1217/2010 as early as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.
Date: 1st July, 2014.
Kvsn