JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The first party in a proceeding u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C for short) filed this revision petition assailing the revisional order passed by the teamed Sessions judge, Puri reversing the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Puri and directing the proceeding be dropped as not maintainable. 2. On the application" of 'the petitioner, initially a proceeding u/s 144, Cr, P. C. was initiated against the opp. parties on 1-12-1983 which was subsequently converted to one u/s 145,- Cr. P, C by the order dated 18-1-1984 and the focal Revenue Inspector was appointed as custodian of the paddy crop then standing on the disputed land. The gist of the case of the petitioner (first party) was that the disputed land, A, 23.07 decimals in extent, belonged to the joint family of the husband of the petitioner and the husband of opp. party No. 1. Opp. parties 1 to 5 filed a suit against the husband of the petitioner for partition of the joint family properties. During pendency of the suit her husband having died, the petition was substituted. The suit is stated to be pending before this Court in First Appeal No, 72 of 1979 Since the consolidation scheme was implemented in the area, the suit abated in respect of the consolidate lands including the disputed land and as such, the disputed land in the 145 proceeding was excluded from the suit and consequentially went out of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Thereafter members of the second party, that is, the successors of late Gopinath Mohapatra (opp. parties 1 to 5), the tenants set up by them tried to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the land. Hence, the proceeding Under Sections 144/143, Cr. P. C. 3. The case of the second party Nos. 1 to 5, was, Inter alia, that after exclusion of the agricultural lands measuring about A.40.00 "from the partition suit -on the ground of consolidation operation in the village, the statutory authority under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act' ) partitioned the properties and the lands in dispute in the present proceeding were allotted .exclusively to the -share of opp. parties 1 to 5 and they cultivated and raised crops on it, They denied the claim of possession of the petitioner over any portion of the disputed land. 4. Opp. party No. 3 In a separate written statement claimed that he was in possession of a portion of the disputed land, A. 1.03 decimals out of plot No, 103, as bhag chasi and has been recognised as such by order of the Collector under the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960. 5. Considering the case pleaded by the contesting parties on the fact that no interim arrangement has been made by any other Court/ authority in respect of the disputed Sand over which both parties are claiming to be in possession, the learned Magistrate felt inclined to convert the proceeding u/s 114 to one u/s 145, Cr. P. C. and made interim arrangements as noticed earlier and passed the order on 18-1-1984 accordingly. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order opp. patties 1 to 5 filed Criminal Revision No. 18 of 198 which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri by his order dated 18-4-1985 in the manner noted earlier. The said order is under challenge in the present case. 7. From the discussions in the impugned order it appears that the two main circumstances which weighed with the learned Sessions judge to drop the proceeding udder Section 145, Cr. P. C. were that the disputed land was the joint family property in which the first party as well as the' second party Nos, 1 to 5 had interest and no party could claim to be in exclusive possession of the land; and that the authority under the Act in exercise of the power vested u/s 7 of the Act has effected a partition of the joint family lands including the disputed land ; and the authorities are also empowered u/s 25 of the Act to deliver possession of the land allotted to each of the parties, if necessary, The learned Sessions Judge felt that in these circumstances initiation of the proceeding u/s 145, 'Cr. P. C, was inappropriate and its further continuance is unnecessary and improper.: 8. P. C, was inappropriate and its further continuance is unnecessary and improper.: 8. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that though the joint family lands have, already: been partitioned by the Consolidation Officer, the matter had not yet been finalised when the impugned order was passed and the revision petition was pending before the Consolidation Commissioner; even assuming that partition of the property had been finalised, that was no reason to drop the proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P, C, and the appropriate .order would be to continue the proceeding till the second party .members approached the authority under the Act for delivery of possession of the lands allotted to them. 9. The circumstances in which initiation of the proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P. C. is inappropriate or if the proceeding has already been initiated its further continuance is unwarranted have been laid down in umpteen number of case; decided by this Court, other High Courts and the Supreme Court. The core principles that emerge from the decided cases may be summed up thus : (a) When a civil litigation is pending for property wherein the question of possession is involved and his been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding u/s 145 of the Code would not be justified and the parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the Criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the Civil Court and parties are in a posion to approach the Civil Court for interim orders, such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. (See Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and 1990 (II) OLR 405 : Damodar Sahu ' Dama Sahu v. Mukunda Swain and others. (b) The Magistrate in a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P. C shall give due respect to the recent decisions of the Civil Court or Revenue Court authority regarding title and possession of the disputed land between the parties. (See Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others lLR 1964 Cut. (b) The Magistrate in a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P. C shall give due respect to the recent decisions of the Civil Court or Revenue Court authority regarding title and possession of the disputed land between the parties. (See Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others lLR 1964 Cut. 182 : Banamali Mohapatra v. Braja Mahak and others, Geevarghese Yohannan and Another Vs. P.J. Abraham Kathanar and Others Bhima Nayak and Others Vs. Panjashaw Durgah and Others 1984 (I) OLR 1039 : Kirtan Jena v. Biswanath Swain and others, Sukadev Bhanja Vs. Mangulu Sahu Radhamohan Panda and Others Vs. Brundaban Naik and Others and Bhama Meher Vs. Kausalya Meher and Others, .) If a Magistrate finds that after the decision of the Civil Court or Revenue Court/authority regarding possession of the land, dispute has again arisen between the parties on the question he should not intiate another proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P. C. but should initiate a proceeding u/s 107, Cr. P. C. and bind down the party who lost in the Civil Court or Revenue Court/authority. I would like to clarify here that the principles are not based on any express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly Section 144 or Sec 145, Indeed Section 145 does not specify any circumstance which bars jurisdiction of the Magistrate to initiate a proceeding under it, but these principles have been reiterated by different Courts so often that they have come to be recognised as well as settled principles of law and any departure from it has been viewed as an illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate which calls for interference, by, the Sessions Court or the High Court in exercise of the revisional power or inherent power as the case may be. In my view, in a case where "the question of desirability/propriety of initiating a proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P. C. is raised the Magistrate should carefully consider the facts arid circumstances of the case before him in the light of the principles noticed earlier, particularly the question that there is ample scope for the parties to approach the Civil Court/Revenue Court/authority to make interim arrange- ment regarding the property to prevent scramble for possession and breach of the peace. Unless due caution is exercised before refusing to initiate the proceeding u/s 145, Cr. Unless due caution is exercised before refusing to initiate the proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P. C. it may result in a situation where the aggrieved party finds no forum for immediate redress of his grievance and therefore is compelled to take recourse to extraneous measures to protect his interest. By this I. should not be understood to be suggesting any departure from the well recognised principles laid down in the decisions noticed earlier. Indeed my emphasis is that the principle should be strictly adhered to and applied on careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case in question. 10. Coming to the present case, the relevant statute, as noticed earlier, ii the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. u/s 7 of the Act, power is vested in the Asst. Consolidation Officer to effect partition of joint holdings on application of any party interested notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, Section 22 of the Act makes provision regarding preparation and publication of final map and record of rights after confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme. Chapter IV of the Act contains provisions regarding enforcement of the scheme. Under the said Chapter Section 23 provides that on and after the date of publication of the map and the record of rights under Sub-section (2) of Section 22, a land owner shall be entitled to enter into possession of the law allotted to him. Section 25 which makes provision regarding delivery of possession provides, inter alia, that on an application made within sixty days from the date of coming into force of the final consolidation scheme by the land owner who is unable to enter into possession of the lands allotted to him under the said scheme, the Asst. Section 25 which makes provision regarding delivery of possession provides, inter alia, that on an application made within sixty days from the date of coming into force of the final consolidation scheme by the land owner who is unable to enter into possession of the lands allotted to him under the said scheme, the Asst. Consolidation Officer may, within six months from the date of application, put the land owner in actual physical possession of the lands so allotted, and in doing, so, shall have all the powers as are exercisable by a Civil Court, in execution of a decree foe delivery of possession of immovable property Under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 it is provided that on the expiry of six months from the date on which the land owner becomes entitled to enter into possession of the lands alotted to him in accordance with Sec 23 or, where, an application has been duly made under Sub-section (1), on the expiry of six months from the date of such application, the concerned had owner shall, if he has not entered into possession earlier, be deemed to have entered into actual physical possession of the lands allotted to him, Sab-section (3) of the section lays down that notwithstanding the provisions contained in-Sub-section (2), where no-application is made under Sub-section (1) by a Sand owner and the Assistant Consolidation Officer has reasons to believe that: the land owner has nor; entered into possession of the lands allotted to him, he may, on his own motion and at any time before the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 41, put the land owner in actual physical possession of the lands so allotted in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as specified in Sub- sec .(1). From the above provisions it is clear that the Act contains not only provisions for partition of the joint property, allotment of shares to the joint owners declaration of right, title and interest but also for actual delivery of possession of the land allotted to the concerned land owner. From the discussions in the order of the learned Sessions Judge it appears that he has. considered the relevant circumstances of the case including the pendency of the revision petition before the . Consolidation Commissioner and the statutory provisions. . From the discussions in the order of the learned Sessions Judge it appears that he has. considered the relevant circumstances of the case including the pendency of the revision petition before the . Consolidation Commissioner and the statutory provisions. . During hearing of the case it was stated at the Bar that in the meantime the Commissioner has disposed of the case and it is now pending before this Court in a writ petition. The learned Sessions Judge also discussed the provision in the Act, which vests power in the statutory authorities to give effect to the partition by delivering .possession of the lands according to the allotments in favour of the respective parties. Further, about seven years have elapsed since initiation of the proceeding u/s 144, Cr. P C. and about five years since disposal of the revision by the learned Sessions judge. Ample time was therefore available to the parties to approach the competent authority under the Act for delivery or' possession of the disputed land and other lands according to the partition, it is also open to the parties to approach this Court or the statutory forum before which the case is pending for making interim arrangement regarding cultivation of the land In such circumstances. If the learned Sessions Judge felt that initiation/continuance of the proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P. C. was inappropriate and unwarranted, I do not think, he committed any serious illegality or impropriety which has either seriously prejudiced the petitioner or has occasioned failure of justice in the case. 11. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed