Judgment : 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and both the sides are heard for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order made by the Executive Magistrate, Beed in proceeding No.213/MTA/Kavi/414. This proceeding was started under Section 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of report given by Beed Rural Police Station. By order dated 2nd April, 2013, proceeding came to be disposed of and the Executive Magistrate directed to take the disputed land Gat No.17 situated at Pali Tahsil and District Beed, admeasuring 4.84 Hectares, in the possession of Government. 3. The record shows that police informed the Executive Magistrate that the parties were claiming to be owners in respect of the same land and they had filed suits against each other. It was reported that there were incidents of quarrel between the parties and so, it had become necessary to start proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Executive Magistrate issued show-cause notices under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after taking the say of both the sides and after giving hearing to them, made the order under challenged. 4. The rival contentions and record show that the Petitioners were shown as owners of the entire portion of disputed land Gat No.17 in the revenue record in the past. The dispute started when the Petitioners realized that the family of one Shantabai Raut, who were the owners of adjacent land Gat Nos.20 and 22, had made encroachment over land Gat No.17. The Petitioners got measured their land Gat No.17 and they found that there was encroachment of a portion of 1.31 Hectares over their land. The Petitioners then filed Regular Civil Suit No.320 of 2006 against the sons of Shantabai for removal of encroachment and for possession of encroached portion. 5. The third party, Shivaji Dhondiram Nawale and his wife came in picture when they purchased 60 R portion of Gat No.17 from the Petitioners. Shivaji purchased Gat Nos.20 and 27 also from the aforesaid party viz Shantabai’s family. 6. It is the case of the Petitioners that there was compromise between the parties and so, the aforesaid lands were sold to Shivaji and his wife. Shivaji purchased Gat Nos.20 and 27 also from the aforesaid party viz Shantabai’s family. 6. It is the case of the Petitioners that there was compromise between the parties and so, the aforesaid lands were sold to Shivaji and his wife. It is the case of the Petitioners that due to the compromise, they withdrew Suit No.320 of 2006. It is the case of the Petitioners that in spite of the compromise, the aforesaid parties continued to claim right over the portion of Gat No.17 and then the Petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.692 of 2012 against the families of both Shantabai and Shivaji. 7. Regular Civil Suit No.692 of 2012 is still pending in the Civil Court. The trial Court granted ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the Petitioners and it was confirmed in respect of portion of 4.24 Hectares of Gat No.17. This order is challenged by filing Miscellaneous Appeal by the family of Shantabai. The Appellate Court has given stay in favour of the family of Shantabai to the order of injunction. The family of Shantabai had already filed Regular Civil Suit No.341 of 2006. This suit is still pending, but no interim relief is granted in favour of the family of Shantabai in respect of land Gat No.17. 8. Shivaji Nawale has filed Regular Civil Suit No.702 of 2012 in respect of 60 R portion of land Gat No.17 purchased by him from the Petitioners. The trial Court has granted relief of temporary injunction in favour of Shivaji and against the Petitioners in respect of this portion. 9. The aforesaid facts show that at present, three civil suits are pending in respect of land Gat No.17 and the Civil Court has made some interim orders of injunction in favour of some of the parties. The record shows that even the concerned Police Station had informed to the Executive Magistrate that such suits were pending and the Civil Court had made some orders. Such defence was taken by the parties also when they filed Say after receiving show-cause notices. 10. The rival contentions and the record do not show that any cognizable offence is registered out of this dispute. It appears that only one N.C. is registered against the Petitioners. Such defence was taken by the parties also when they filed Say after receiving show-cause notices. 10. The rival contentions and the record do not show that any cognizable offence is registered out of this dispute. It appears that only one N.C. is registered against the Petitioners. It appears that only the Petitioners have the grievance against the aforesaid order of the Executive Magistrate as they have lost the possession of most of the area of Gat No. 17. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on the cases reported as [(2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 366], (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) and [AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1], (Chandrasekhar Singh and others Vs. Siya Ram Singh and others). In the cases cited supra and particularly in the first case, the Apex Court has laid down that when there is dispute about immovable property and if it is pending before Civil Court, it will be for the Civil Court to decide, who was in possession. In view of the fact of the case, the Apex Court held that there was no urgency and the Civil Court being already seized of the matter, it was not desirable for the Executive Magistrate to attach the property in dispute. Somewhat similar observation is made in the second case by the Apex Court. The facts of the present case are also similar in nature. The facts do not show that there was urgency as such. The facts show that the dispute is pending before the Civil Court and the Civil Court has made some orders to protect the possession. In view of this position of law, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Executive Magistrate has committed error in making the order of attachment of the property and making order to take the property in possession of the Government. 12. For the Respondents, reliance was placed on the cases reported as [(2008 DGLS (Cri.) Soft 9), Rajasthan High Court, (Natwar Lal & Ors Vs. State and Ors.)] and [( 1998 (5) Bom.C.R. 546 ), PanajiBench of Bombay High Court, ( Shri Padmanabh Keshav Kamat Vs. Shri Anup R. Kantak & others)]. In the cases cited supra, the Rajasthan High Court has discussed “propriety” of filing Revision in High Court when the revision can be filed in Sessions Court. State and Ors.)] and [( 1998 (5) Bom.C.R. 546 ), PanajiBench of Bombay High Court, ( Shri Padmanabh Keshav Kamat Vs. Shri Anup R. Kantak & others)]. In the cases cited supra, the Rajasthan High Court has discussed “propriety” of filing Revision in High Court when the revision can be filed in Sessions Court. It is observed that in such a case, the party should first approach the Sessions Court and not the High Court. In the other case the Panaji Bench of this Court has observed that the High Court can entertain revision when there are exceptional circumstances. There cannot be any dispute over these propositions. The present proceeding is a writ proceeding. Though alternate remedy of revision is available, the aforesaid facts show that there are exceptional circumstances and the Petitioners lost possession of most of portion of land Gat No.17 due to the order made by the Executive Magistrate. The order cannot sustain in law and this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to direct the parties to approach the Sessions Court and then again come to this Court. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the relief claimed in the proceeding needs to be granted. 13. In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed. The order of S.D.M. made in proceeding No.213/MTA/Kavi/414, is hereby set aside. The parties to act in accordance with the orders made by the Civil Court in the proceedings, which are already pending and which may be filed in future. As the order of S.D.M. is set aside, the original position with regard to the possession and as per the orders made by the Civil Court is hereby restored. 14. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.