JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition arises out of a revision petition hearing No. 22 of 1981 decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh vide his order dated 6-10-1987 whereby he has dismissed the revision petition so far as it relates to 25 bighas of land situated in Chak 17 LLU. The learned Judge was, however, set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh so far as it relates to 37 bighas of land situated in Chak 16 LLW and has ordered that if any amount is deposited on account of the sale of the proceeds of 37 bighas of laud of Chak 16 LLW, it be distributed as per the orders of the revenue court. He has further ordered that in case, no formal orders are passed by the learned revenue court then this amount deposited in the Court be released in Favour of the person in whose favour the order is passed by the revenue court i.e. who is declared to be its owner. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that: one Bootasingh was the owner of 80 bighas of land in Chak 16 LLW, 17 LLW, 14 LLW and 15 MMK. Mst. Gurdev Kaur happens to be the wife of Bootasingh. It is alleged that Bootasingh left his home before about 11-12 years and, thereafter, his whereabouts are not known. He was of weak mind. Efforts were made to trace him out but he was not traceable It is alleged that after Bootasingh left his home, this 80 bighas of land belonging to Bootasingh was cultivated by his wife Mst. Gurdevkaur. It is alleged that on 24-4-1981, one Randhirsingh son of Shyarnsingh Jet Sikh resident of village Jodkiya came to her field and he ploughed the field, which was in her possession and was also cultivated by her and tried to disturb her possession on this land. Hence, proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated. 3. On investigation, it was found that Bootasingh has executed a Will whereby he has donated 50 bighas of this land to Gurudwara Bheni Sahib, Ludhiana. He has also bequeathed 25 bighas of land in favour of one Sukhdev Singh who happens to be his brother-in-law (SADHU) and has kept 5 bighas of land for his wife. 3. On investigation, it was found that Bootasingh has executed a Will whereby he has donated 50 bighas of this land to Gurudwara Bheni Sahib, Ludhiana. He has also bequeathed 25 bighas of land in favour of one Sukhdev Singh who happens to be his brother-in-law (SADHU) and has kept 5 bighas of land for his wife. It is alleged that this Will was executed on 28-2-1978 and Boota Singh expired on 15-1-1979. It is alleged that on account of this Will, Randhirsingh who happens to be the Special Power of Attorney Holder of Gurudwara Bheni Sahib, Ludhiana tried to dispossess Mst. Gurdev Kaur. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate felt that peace and tranquillity is likely to be disturbed at any moment and, therefore, he initiated proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide his Judgment dated 13-5-1987 has held that this Will is not reliable and, therefore, he held that Mst. Gurdev Kaur is in possession of this land. The entire land and the proceeds thereof were released in favour of Mst. Gurdev Kaur. Aggrieved against this Judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Randhirsingh and Sukhedvsingh filed revisions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sukhdevsingh admitted the claim of Mst. Gurdev Kaur so far as it relates to 25 bighas of land which has been be quashed to him by Bootasingh and, therefore, the learned revisional court felt that possession of 25 bighas of land which has gone to the share of Sukhdevsingh on account of the execution of Will by Bootasingh be delivered to Gurdev Kuar The learned revisional court further felt that regarding remaining 37 bighas of land which is claimed by Gurudwara Bheni Sahib, Ludhiana through its Special Power of Attorney Holder Shri Randhirsingh, the amount deposited on account of the sale of the proceeds of 37 bighas of land of Chak 16 LLW, be distributed as per the orders of the revenue court and in case, no formal orders are passed by the learned revenue court then this amount be released in favour of the person who is declared as its owner by the revenue court. The order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiating the proceedings regarding 37 bighas of land of Chak 16 LLW was set aside on the ground that earlier to the initiation of these proceedings, the parties have filed a civil suit in the revenue court. It is alleged that that suit was filed in the court of learned Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh on 5-3-1981 or 31-3-1981 whereas these proceedings were initiated under section 145 Cr. P. on 30-7-1981. The temporary injunction which was granted ex parte was later on revoked after filing of the reply on behalf of Gurudwara Bheni Sahib, Ludhiana. The suit was filed by Mst. Gurdevkaur. Gurudwara Bheni Sahib, Ludhiana claimed possession of 50 bighas of land whereas Mst. Gurdev Kaur claimed that she is in possession of the entire land belonging to Bootasingh. In that suit, the learned revenue court framed issues. Issue No. 3, when translated into English reads as follows: "Whether the plaintiff is the Khatedar of the disputed land and she is in possession of it" ? Thus, it is clear that in the suit that was pending before the learned revenue court and which was instituted prior to the initiation of these proceedings, the possession of the disputed lard was very much in dispute and, therefore, the learned revisional court while relying on Ramsumerpuri's case ( AIR 1985 SC 472 ) and Arunmingh's case (1986 Cr. LR (Raj) 395) has felt that initiation of the proceedings under section Criminal Procedure Code was wrong and therefore, it has quashed these proceedings so far as they are related to 37 bighas of land of Chak 16 LLW. 5. Mr. B.K. Chouhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he does not challenge the order of the learned revisional court whereby it has held that proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code could not have been initiated on account of pendency of a revenue suit between the parties. He has further submitted that in compliance of the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the possession of the land has already been handed over to Mst. Gurdevkaur and she is still in possession of that land and, therefore, to this extent he has no grouse. 6. I have heard Mr. D K. Chouhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Arora for non-petitioner No. 1 and Mrs Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor for the State. Gurdevkaur and she is still in possession of that land and, therefore, to this extent he has no grouse. 6. I have heard Mr. D K. Chouhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Arora for non-petitioner No. 1 and Mrs Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that the revenue suit was instituted prior to the initiation of the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, both the parties have rightly conceded that those criminal proceedings could not have been initiated. However, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the land in dispute and it was given in possession of Receiver, who auctioned the crop and the sale proceed of the crop has been deposited in the court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate so far as it related to 37 bighas of land situated in chak 16 gave a direction that if any amount is deposited on account of the sale of the proceeds of the crop of 37 bighas of land, it be distributed as per the directions of the revenue court and in case, no formal orders are passed by the learned revenue court then this amount deposited in the court be released in favour of the person who is declared to be its owner by the revenue court. This order, in the facts and circumstances of this case, appears to be most just and proper. As observed earl in this case, civil suit is pending between the parties, in which both the parties claimed that they are in possession of the land in dispute and an issue (Issue No. 3) has been framed by the learned revenue court about this controversy and, therefore, the question about possession of land is still sub judice and it has yet to be decided which particular party is in possession of the land. In these circumstances, the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge so far as it related to 37 bighas of land in Chak 16 LLW can neither be held to be capricious nor wrong or illegal. Rather, it appears to be most just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. In these circumstances, the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge so far as it related to 37 bighas of land in Chak 16 LLW can neither be held to be capricious nor wrong or illegal. Rather, it appears to be most just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the parties pray that the amount is lying in the Court, it would be better if it is deposited in yearly fixed Deposit it with any scheduled Bank so that the amount may earn interest and the party in whose favour orders are passed, may not lose its interest. This submission is reasonable. 9. In the result, I find no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. However, it is directed that the amount of the sale-proceed of the crop of 37 bighas of land of Chak 16 LLW, which is deposited in the Court be deposited in an yearly fixed deposit with any scheduled Bank and that yearly fixed deposit be renewed every year till the matter is decided by a competent court and the amount with interest be released in favour of a person who is held entitled to receive it. 10. Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned lower court forthwith.Revision dismissed. *******