JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code., the order dated 27.8.1994 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh (Ajmer) in proceedings under Sections 145, 146 Criminal Procedure Code, is being challenged. 2. In brief, the facts necessary for this petition may be narrated. 3. The subject-matter of dispute is agricultural land situated in village Dang. The description and particulars of the land have been given in para No. 1 of the petition. The petitioners are claiming possession over the said land since Samwat Year 2006 as cultivators. Proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code were initiated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh on a report submitted by S.H.O., Airan. Vide order dated 3.12.1990 while issuing order, the land in question were ordered to be attached by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code and Tehsildar of the area was appointed receiver. Non-petitioners Nos. 4 to 32 filed a revision petition challenging the said order in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer and the case was remanded to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate to pass orders under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code. after hearing both the parties. On 24.6.1991, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate again maintained the order of attachment under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code. and the S.H.O. was appointed receiver in place of Tehsildar. Non- petitioners again filed a revision petition but the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Then they filed a Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. before this Court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 550/92. The said petition was decided on November 10,1993 and it was held that when civil suit was pending between the parties in relation to the land in question parallel proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. were not permissible. The following operative order was passed in the aforesaid petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. "Therefore, to avoid injustice to both the parties and to prevent the breach of peace, over the possession of land in question, it is directed that the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 will move application before the civil court concerned, before 25.11.93 for appointment of receiver on land in question, and both the parties are also directed to appear before the civil court concerned on 25.11.93 and to adduce their evidence, if any, in their support. 2 to 4 will move application before the civil court concerned, before 25.11.93 for appointment of receiver on land in question, and both the parties are also directed to appear before the civil court concerned on 25.11.93 and to adduce their evidence, if any, in their support. Learned Civil Court concerned, is also directed to decide the application regarding appointment of receiver on or before expiry of four months from the date of this order. Till disposal of the application for appointment of receiver or expiry of four months, whichever is earlier, the order dated 24.6.91 of SDM will continue." 4. The petitioners filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed as under : "Having regard to the special circumstances of the case we do not want to go into the legal question. However, the civil Court shall decide the question of application for appointment of a Receiver on its own merits. The S.L.P. is dismissed with the above observations." 5. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate withdraw the order of attachment and the receiver was directed to handover the possession of the land from whose possession it was taken. Hence petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Two fold submissions have been made by Mr. Garg appearing for the petitioners. The first submission was that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate should have waited till the Civil Court finally decided the application for appointment of receiver. The second submission was that subsequently the receiver has delivered the possession to non-petitioners No. 4 to 32, which was against the impugned order as such it should be restored to the petitioners. 7. In my view no relief can be given to the petitioners. The first submission is not sustainable as the impugned order has been passed after expiry of the period given by the civil Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. The S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Supreme Court and as such the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not bound to wait till the decision on the application for appointment of receiver by the concerned civil Court. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has withdrawn the receiver in pursuance to the order of this Court as stated earlier. The second submission cannot be appreciated by this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has withdrawn the receiver in pursuance to the order of this Court as stated earlier. The second submission cannot be appreciated by this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. In the impugned order the Magistrate has categorically stated that the possession of the land in question be given to the party from whose possession the same was taken. If the said order has not been properly complied with by the receiver, the petitioners are always free to put their grievance or complain before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 8. The petition is dismissed summarily as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******