JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - The revision petition arises out of the order dated 26.8.85 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Aska in Misc. Case No. 117 of 1981 refusing to drop the proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The short and relevant facts of the case are that in course of consolidation operation, the lands which are subject matter of the dispute in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in favour of the 1st party. The second party preferred revision before the Consolidation Commissioner. The revision was dismissed. The 2nd party filed a writ, being O.J.C. 2515 of 1984, challenging the judgment of the Consolidation Commissioner. At this stage the 2nd party filed a petition before the Executive Magistrate to drop the proceeding in view of the pendency of a civil proceeding i.e. the writ to which the Executive Magistrate refused and hence, this revision has been filed. 3. The learned advocate for the Petitioner argued that in view of the pendency of the writ application which is a civil proceeding, the proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. I do not accept the contention of the learned advocate for the Petitioner. Mere pendency of a civil proceeding does not debar institution of a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. I am fortified in this view by a decision reported in Subala Dehury Vs. Rupakar Dehury and Another, 4. The learned advocate for the Petitioner relied upon their decisions reported in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and Keshab Das and Others Vs. Bauribandhu Behera and Others, and argued that in view of the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. The above two decisions are quite distinguishable. In the Supreme Court decision there was a decree by the Civil Court and against that decree an appeal had been preferred and the same was pending. In the decision of the Orissa High Court an application for injunction had been filed and the same was rejected. It appears that an appeal had been preferred against that order under Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, in both the cases suits were pending and the parties had opportunity to approach the Court for interim injunction or appointment of receiver, as the case may be. It appears that an appeal had been preferred against that order under Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, in both the cases suits were pending and the parties had opportunity to approach the Court for interim injunction or appointment of receiver, as the case may be. In such circumstances, the Court held that continuance of the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is only wastage of time specially when the Civil Court is competent to decide the question of possession and also maintenance of status quo in respect of the property involved in the case. 5. In this case, matter is quite different. The consolidation proceedings were pending in the Court of the first instance and the 2nd party members being dissatisfied with the order of the revisional Court, filed a writ of certiorary in this Court. In a writ of certiorary, this Court will certainly decline to exercise any other jurisdiction which is not warranted in the O.L.R. Act and which the authorities of the O.L.R. Act could not have exercised. As PW the provisions of the O.L.R. Act, there is no scope for granting ad interim injunction or appointment of receiver. There is also no scope to maintain status quo of the properties in any manner. In such circumstances, when there is apprehension of breach of peace accompanied with dispute over possession of immovable properties, there is no order way except instituting a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence in this case the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is quite justified. Only because the consolidation proceeding has been carried upto the High Court, there is absolutely no reason for dropping the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. In these circumstances, the learned Executive Magistrate is quite justified in passing the impugned order. In the result, there is no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed. 6. In Misc. Case No. 541 of 1989, this Court made an interim arrangement on consent of both the parties and according to that arrangement, on depositing a sum of Rs. 2. 000/- within 15 days from 21.6.1989 by Govinda Panda (Petitioner), lease of the land in question was given in his favour. The advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner Govinda Panda has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as directed and he was cultivating the land in question. 2. 000/- within 15 days from 21.6.1989 by Govinda Panda (Petitioner), lease of the land in question was given in his favour. The advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner Govinda Panda has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as directed and he was cultivating the land in question. If it is true then the arrangement will continue till the standing paddy and other crops as may be found on the land is question are harvested and after that the lower Court shall make any other arrangement as it deems proper. Final Result : Dismissed