Judgment S.C.Vyas, J. ( 1. ) This is a petition filed by petitioner under the provisions of S. 482 of Cr. P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.6.07, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shujalpur in Case No. 147/145/2007, whereby the disputed land was attached under the provisions of S.146 of the Code and was given in possession of a Receiver duly appointed by him. ( 2. ) Theisaid order was challenged by filing a criminal revision No.}19 of 07 before Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujalapur and the same was dismissed on 4.7.2007. After dismissal of Criminal Revision, pertitioner approached this court by filing this petition ( 3. ) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that in the impugned order passed by SDM, nothing has been stated as to how the court has come to the conclusion that either of the parties were not found in actual physical possession prior to two months from the date of passing of preliminary order, or, there was some state of emergency and it was necessary to appoint a Receiver attaching the disputed land/property. ( 4. ) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondents submitted that as per deceree passed by Lok Adalat presided over by Addl. Distt. Judge vide order dated 23.2.1997, Bhumiswami rights of present respondent was declared on the basis of adverse possession and therefore respondent was in continuous possession, despite that petitioner was continuously interfering in her possession and therefore complaint under the provisions of S.145 of the Code was filed. ( 5. ) On perusal of the decree it appears that it was passed by Lok Adalat on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and it was declared that the decree would be effective only after its registration in the office of Registrar, but at the time of passing this decree, both parties were in agreement that Mrs. Kavita wife of Shailendra was in long possession over the disputed land/property. It appears that after passing the alleged decree, some dispute arose between the parties regarding possession, because petitioner was recorded bhiimiswami, whereas, respondent Kavita was having a decree of declaration of title in her favour on the basis of adverse possession. Kavita wife of Shailendra was in long possession over the disputed land/property. It appears that after passing the alleged decree, some dispute arose between the parties regarding possession, because petitioner was recorded bhiimiswami, whereas, respondent Kavita was having a decree of declaration of title in her favour on the basis of adverse possession. In such situation, learned SDM had passed an order of attachment of the disputed property/land under the provisions of S. 146 of the Code and a Receiver has been appointed to lookafter the disputed property. S. 146 of the Code reads as under; " 146, Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver:- (1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof; Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no9longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. (2) When the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute, he may, if no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been appointed by any Civil Court, make such arrangements as he considers proper for looking after the property or if he thinks fit, appoint a receiver thereof, who, shall have, subject to the control of the Magistrate, all the powers of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Proceldure, 1908 ( 5 of 1908); Provided that in the event of receiver being subsequently appointed in relation to the subject of dispute by any Civil Court, the Magistrate (a) shall order the receiver appointed by him to hand over the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver appointed by the Civil Court and shall thereafter discharge the receiver appointed by him; (b) may make such other incidental or consequential orders as may be just. ( 6. ( 6. ) In view of aforesaid situation, the impugned order of SDM cannot be said to be illegal, but an error is there in the impugned order. As per provisions of S. 146 of the Code, it is necessary for the court concerned at the time of appointing a Receiver on a disputed property to direct the parties to approach the competent civil court for establishment of their entitlement to the possession thereof. Such direction has not been given in the impugned order. In the interest of justice to adjudicate the matter, such direction is now being given. ( 7. ) Resultlantly the petition is partly allowed. The order of attachment and with regard to appoint a receiver shall remain as it is, but both the parties are directed to approach to competent court for establishment of their title and possession also over the disputed property/land. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.