Judgment Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 3. 2. Thispetition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 9th March, 1995 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 26/95, whereby the Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner attached the disputed property under Sub-section (1) of Section 146, Cr. P.C. on being satisfied that the case was up to emergency. The petition is also directed against the order dated 2nd December, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/93, whereby the revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 9th March, 1995 was passed by the Additional District Magistrate(City), Bikaner. 3. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, the Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach the property in dispute, because the matter was already pending in the Revenue Court and injunction had already been issued and there was no emergency so far as the possession of the land in dispute was concerned. He has, therefore, prayed that the orders passed by the Courts below be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 3 have supported the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Additional District Judge and prayed for the dismissal of this petition. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner and the Additional District Judge, Bikaner. It appears that the police submitted a complaint in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. In that complaint, it was mentioned that near Bikaner-Nokha Road, in front of Dadabadi, there was a plot of land, on which a house was standing and the land was surrounded by stone-slabs, which were vertically placed. The aforesaid land was in possession of Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal, who had obtained the permission for construction of house from the Municipal Council, Bikaner. After obtaining the permission for construction of the house, when they started construction of the boundary wall, the non-petitioner Magan Lal, whose land is adjacent to the land of Poonam Chand and Ramcshwar Lal started quarrelling. After obtaining the permission for construction of the house, when they started construction of the boundary wall, the non-petitioner Magan Lal, whose land is adjacent to the land of Poonam Chand and Ramcshwar Lal started quarrelling. He asked Poonam Chand and Ramesh war Lal not to construct the boundary wall and threatened to demolish the same and he appeared to bent on quarelling and committing the breach of peace. It was also mentioned in the complaint that an inquiry was conducted by the SHO of the Police Station and on inquiry it was revealed that Khasra No. 75, there was a plot measuring 3400 sq. ft. and the Patta of that plot had been obtained by Rameshwar Lal from the Sub Divisional Magistrate (North), Bikaner on 1st October, 94 by concealment of facts that the case was pending in the Revenue Court and an injunction has already been issued by the Revenue Court. It was also mentioned in the complaint that Madan Lal was claiming that he had obtained the possession of the land from Shanker Lal about 16 to 17 years ago under an agreement to sell and an appeal was pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and an injunction had already been issued and the main cause of quarelling between the parties was that in spite of the injunction issued by the Revenue Court Poonam Chand was trying to construct the boundary wall. 6. The facts mentioned in the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate clearly show that the plot of land was in possession of Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal and they had already constructed a house on the land and surrounded the land by placing stone slabs around it. A Patta has also been obtained by Poonam Chand from the Sub Divisional Magistrate (North), Bikaner, though the dispute regarding the land was pending in the Revenue Court and that Injunction has already been issued by the Revenue Court. Magan Lal, on the other hand was claiming land under some agreement to sell, which according to him had been executed by Shanker Lal 16 to 17 years ago. There is nothing to indicate that Magan Lal was disputing the de facto possession of Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal on the land. Magan Lal, on the other hand was claiming land under some agreement to sell, which according to him had been executed by Shanker Lal 16 to 17 years ago. There is nothing to indicate that Magan Lal was disputing the de facto possession of Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal on the land. In the above mentioned circumstances, it is obvious that there was in fact no dispute so far as the possession of the land was concerned, nor there was any doubt as to who was in the possession of the land. The land was in possession of Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal and Magan Lal was not making any effort to unlawfully possess; the land or unlawfully obtain the possession of the land from Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal. In fact, the bone of contention between the parties was the construction of boundary wall around the land. Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal wanted to construct the boundary wall and Madan Lal was objecting to it as an injunction has already been issued by the Revenue Court. In these circumstances, it is obvious that there was no justification for attaching the land under Sub-section (1) of Section 146 CrPC In fact, the learned Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction whatsoever to exercise the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 14. Cr.P.C. There was no dispute about the possession of the land and as such there was absolutely no emergency so far as the possession of the land was concerned. I therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order of attachment passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner was without jurisdiction and it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the order of attachment passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr.P.C. by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner on 9th March, 95 in criminal case No. 26/95 and the order dated 2nd December, 95 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bikaner in criminal revision No. 20/95 deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. If the possession of the land was taken by the Receiver from the petitioner Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal (non-petitioner No. 2), in pursuance of the order dated 29th March, 95 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner, the same shall be returned to Poonam Chand and Rameshwar Lal as the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr. P.C. has been set aside. 8. TheAdditional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner is further directed to dispose of the complaint pending in his Court in accordance with law as early as may be possible. * * * * *