ORDER Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The petitioners challenge the communication of the first respondent herein dated 23-12-1988, informing that in view of the disputes between the registered owners and owner in possession, the Board is not in a position to release the pool payments to the registered owners in the absence of court order. 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 3-7-1989. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through counsel. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit and appears through the counsel. 3. The dispute relates to a coffee plantation which is grown in Pattipadi Estate. The petitioners herein and the third respondent are the owners of the Estate. Out of 45 acres of land, about ten acres of land is in the name of the third respondent and the rest is owned by the petitioners and the Coffee Registration Certificate and Central Excise Licence are in their names. As there in a separate civil dispute in C.M.A. 505 of 1986, regarding the other properties of Yercaud and other places, this Court has appointed the third respondent herein as a party Receiver to manage the property including Maryland and Vasambadi Estates in Yercaud. But the Pattipadi Estate is not under the control of the third respondent. The petitioners alleged in the affidavit that during 1987-88 season the coffee harvested from the estates of the petitioners was sent to the Marylands Estate as usual for pulping, drying and storing, and that after the Pulping was over, the third respondent who was managing the Marylands Estate Receiver for the other Estates, refused to hand over the pulped coffee for being sent out curers. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the transport permit forms for the year 1987-88 crop were issued in the name of the petitioners herein in the month of November, 1987, that inspite of issue of transport permit forms No. 3 to the petitioners, the third respondent herein refused to deliver 1987-88 crop to the petitioners to enable then to send the same to the curers, that the third respondent is neither a registered owner nor a grower of the above said four estates belonging to the petitioners herein, and that the matter was brought to the notice of the first respondent by telegrams dated 12-12-1988 and 21-12-1988 and the first respondent by reply dated 23-12-1988, directed the petitioners to approach the court. It is the case of the petitioners that they were pooled for 1987-88 season but payments were not made. It is also stated in the affidavit that under Section 34 of the Coffee Act, the first respondent should make the payment to the registered owners and that in the Coffee Act, nowhere it is stated that the Board has any authority to withhold the payments due to the registered owners. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the first respondent having rightly released payments due to the petitioners for the coffee picked and pooled for the season 1988-89, erred in applying a different yardstick in refusing to release the pool payments for the coffee picked in the season 1987-88 and that so long as the petitioners are the registered owners registered under Section 14(1) of the Coffee Act; the Board cannot think of any other person entitled to the pool payments for the coffee pooled. It is further stated that since under Section 47-A of the Coffee Act, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the first respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court, with the prayer as stated supra. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is claimed that the third respondents and the petitioners are members of the joint family of one L. Ramakrishnan Chettiar, that the properties mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioners at all times, from the respective dates of purchases are being considered treated and enjoyed only as Joint family properties of L. Ramakrishnan Chettiar, that he owns 10.5 acres of Coffee Estate in Pattipadi village, that the said Estate is situated adjacent to the Estates which stand in the name of the petitioners and that the Estate standing in the names of the petitioners and the third respondent are being maintained along with and as integral part of Mary Lands Estate. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the third respondent is an actual possession, occupation and management of the Estate standing in the names of the petitioners and that he has harvested the Coffee, from the Estates during 1987-88 season and has pulped, cured. and stored in Mary Lands Estate. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the third respondent is an actual possession, occupation and management of the Estate standing in the names of the petitioners and that he has harvested the Coffee, from the Estates during 1987-88 season and has pulped, cured. and stored in Mary Lands Estate. The third respondent refers to Crl.M.P.Nos.8283 of 1988 and 8284 of 1988, in which the Criminal Proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. has been quashed, with a direction to proceed with fresh proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C It is also stated that notice has been issued in M.C.No. 3/1989 and it is still pending before the Executive First Class Magistrate, Salem. It is further stated that the Dispute involved is purely a civil dispute concerning the property rights of the parties and that since a criminal proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C is pending before the I Class Magistrate Court, the first respondent is justified in refusing to make payments to either of the parties pending final decision of the civil dispute as well as the criminal proceedings. It is also stated that such a question of fact regarding the right to property as well as the factual position as to who is in possession of the Estate in question cannot be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings. 5. Mr. R. Shanmugham, the learned Counsel for the Coffee Board states that under Section 3(i) of the Coffee Act, the owner is defined to the following effect: Owner in relation to any land planted with coffee plants, includes: 1. any agent of the owner, and 2. a mortgagee, lessee or other person in actual possession of the land The learned Counsel refers to Section 3(1) of the Act which is to the following effect: Registered owner means an owner of a registered estate who has been is required to be a registered under Sub-section (1) of Section 14. Section 14 of the Coffee Act provides for registration of owners of coffee estates. The learned Counsel, referring to Section 34 of the Act states that the Board shall at such times as it thinks fit make to registered owners who have delivered coffee for inclusion in the surplus pool such payments cut of the pool fund as it may think proper. The learned Counsel, referring to Section 34 of the Act states that the Board shall at such times as it thinks fit make to registered owners who have delivered coffee for inclusion in the surplus pool such payments cut of the pool fund as it may think proper. As such, the learned Counsel states that since the third respondent as delivered the coffee in this case, the payments could not be made to the petitioners. 6. After considering the arguments of Mr.K.Sarvabhuman, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R. Shanmugham, the learned Counsel for the Coffee Board and Mr.V.P. Venka-traman for V.Rama Jagadessan, the learned Counsel for the third respondent, I am of the view that the writ petition has to be dismissed, on the ground that a criminal proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. is pending, with regard to possession. The petitioners claim the pool payments only on the basis that they are the registered owners. It is not denied by the third respondent, that the petitioners are the registered owners. But as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Coffee Board as well as by the counsel for the third respondent 'Owner' includes other persons, who are in actual possession of the land. If this has to be taken along with Section 34 of the Act, I am of the view that no writ can lie at this stage. Factually the period in question is 1987-88 and who was in possession at that time is the subject matter of the pending criminal proceedings under Section 145, Cr P.C. When such is the case, I do not see how a writ can be issued. In my view, the Board has rightly taken the stand that unless the petitioners get an order from the court, payments cannot be made to the petitioners. This is not a case where a third party has been appointed as a Receiver. One of the family members is appointed as Receiver and though he has not been given any receivership with regard to this Estate, that the factual dispute has been treated as a joint family property all along. Since the entire matter is before the Civil Court and also before a Criminal Court I do not think it is fensible to interfere with it, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the entire matter is before the Civil Court and also before a Criminal Court I do not think it is fensible to interfere with it, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the factum of the possession is in question, it is not possible for this Court to say the order of the Board is wrong. If is true that the Coffee Act does not provide for a contingency with regard to possessory title. A conjoint rending of Section 3(i), 3(1) along with Section 34 of the Coffee Act clearly shows, that the third respondent's contention has to be accepted. In view of my conclusion that no writ can lie, and the matter is pending before a Civil Court and Criminal Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I am also inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have got a remedy to approach the Central Government against any act of the Board. Section 42 of the Act clearly states that all acts of the Board shall be subject to the control of the Central Government which may cancel, suspend or modify as it thinks fit any action taken by the Board. On this ground also in my view, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.