Judgment : 1. The second respondent herein / A party had sent a complaint to the District Collector, Krishnagiri, stating that he is a tenant to the door No.1/1, Town Hall Trust, Palacode Taluk under one Annamalai Chettiyar, who is also A party in the above said proceedings. The said Jayaraman/ A party had stated in his complaint that he was running a tailor shop and sweet stall and paying monthly rent to the Trust President, Annamalai Chettiyar. After business hours, he used to close the shop and hand over the rental premises key to the landlord, viz., Annamalai Chettiar. Under the circumstances, the third parties had broken the lock and also thrown out the articles from the said premises. Hence, the complaint was sent to the District Collector. On the same occurrence, the said Annamalai Chettiar had lodged a complaint before the Police Station, Palacode. The Station House Officer had registered a criminal case for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 454, 427 of IPC. Based on the said complaint of Jayaraman, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri had sent a notice to "A party" and "B party" and asked them to appear before them on 18.08.2003 at 4 p.m., for an enquiry. Both parties had submitted a written submission and annexed connected documents. 2. The "A party" stated that on 31.05.1922, the Vysiya Community and Arya Community people had purchased a land from one Pachiyappa Chettiar of Palacode Town Hall Trust and that they had also paid tax for the said building. As per the revenue records, a patta has been issued in the name of Town Hall as per patta No.1553. Further, the trust is a registered one and covered by Rules and Regulations. The said property was let out to "A party" Jayaraman on a monthly rent basis. At this juncture, i.e, on 14.07.2003, the rental premises i.e, tailor shop was broken open and the articles had been thrown out from the premises. "A" party came to know that the mischief makers, who had made wrongful entry and forcibly thrown out the articles, were alleged to be congress party members. Regarding this occurrence, the criminal case in Crime No.223 of 2003 has been registered on the file of Palacode Police Station. Further, the electricity connection and other connected records exists in the name of Annamalai Chettiar and the property is under his control and maintenance. 3. Regarding this occurrence, the criminal case in Crime No.223 of 2003 has been registered on the file of Palacode Police Station. Further, the electricity connection and other connected records exists in the name of Annamalai Chettiar and the property is under his control and maintenance. 3. The "B Party" viz., Balakrishnan and others had submitted written submission stating that in the said building the partyoffice was functioning for the past 75 years. The property belongs to one Manickam Udayar and Munusamy Gounder, Town President to the Congress Party and as such, the property does not belong to private individuals. On 14.01.1977, the party had remitted fees for electricity connection. Further the said building is in a dilapidated condition. However, the 'B' party had not submitted supporting documents for their written submission. 4. The learned Revenue Divisional Officer had collected information from the Revenue Authorities and submitted a report stating that the landed property of the building has been let to Desabandhu Valibar Association and the said property is now under the occupation of Annamalai Chettiyar. On 15.07.2003, the 'B' party forcibly occupied the said property and as such, there was violation of law and order in the local area. 5. On considering the above facts, the learned Magistrate directed the 'B' party to restore the said building to the 'A' party. Further, both parties should maintain law and order. The learned Revenue Divisional Officer also directed the police personnel who are attached to the Palacode Police Station to recover the said property from "B" party and hand it over to "A" party and till such time the dispute is settled, the "B" party was directed not to interfere with the possession of "A" party. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 1 and 2 / "B" party" has filed the above revision. 7. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, had invoked Section 145 Cr.P.C. and passed the orders in the absence of a police report. Actually, there is no law and order problem or a tense situation in the said premises. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no locus-standi to recover the property from "B party" and restore the same to "A party". Actually, there is no law and order problem or a tense situation in the said premises. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no locus-standi to recover the property from "B party" and restore the same to "A party". "B party also possessed title deeds over the said property and one of the vital document i.e, the payment receipt which had been issued by the electricity board on 14.01.1977 for electricity connection, had been issued in their name. Besides this, in the said property, Congress party has been functioning for the past 75 years. In the said office, Manicka Udayar and Munusami Gounder functioned as Taluk President of the Congress party. The very competent counsel further contended that the "B" party never made any wrong entry into the property and did not dispossess the belongings of the so-called "tenant". Further, Annamalai Chettiyar had lodged a complaint against "B" party and the said complaint has been registered against "B" party. Subsequently, the said case has not been proceeded with. The Revenue Authorities submitted a report stating that the property belongs to Desabandhu Valibar Association therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer's order is an erroneous one. The highly competent counsel further contended that the revenue tax receipt is not a document to determine the ownership. In absence of police recommendation regarding violation of law and order, Section 145 could not be invoked. He further submitted that if the "A" party's civil rights are affected, they have to approach only the civil Court for their remedy. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the impugned order. 8. The highly competent counsel for the first respondent argued that the said building is under the custody of third respondent herein, viz., Annamalai Chettiyar, who let out the property on a monthly rental basis to the second respondent herein and as such, the "A" party are in a physical possession and enjoying the property as landlord and tenant and therefore, their possession is a lawful one. The "B" party made a wrong entry on 14.07.2003 and hence, a criminal case has been levelled against "B" party. Besides this, the tenant-Jayaraman had sent a complaint to the District Collector, who in turn, referred the complaint to his subordinate viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority to maintain law and order. The "B" party made a wrong entry on 14.07.2003 and hence, a criminal case has been levelled against "B" party. Besides this, the tenant-Jayaraman had sent a complaint to the District Collector, who in turn, referred the complaint to his subordinate viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority to maintain law and order. Hence, he had conducted an enquiry after calling both parties and passed orders after considering the F.I.R. which was registered by the House Station Officer, Palacode Police Station against the "B" party. Further, the revenue officials had given a written statement on the basis of revenue records and as such, it is proved that "A" party is in physical possession of the property. The learned counsel further submitted that the "B" party trespassed into the property and occupied the same and as such, they are unlawful occupants and therefore, in order to avoid a tense situation and to maintain law and order, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer had passed the impugned order, which is appropriate. Further, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer has given an opportunity to decide the issue through a proper forum to decide the title over the said property and had ordered possession to the "A" party as it was found that they were in physical possession of the property and occupied the same as on 14.07.2003. Therefore, the impugned order will not be prejudicial to the interest of the "B" party. Hence, Mr.C.Balasubramaniam, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, entreats the Court to dismiss the revision. 9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on scrutinizing the impugned order of the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. This Court's further view is that the dispute is not between two private individuals, but actually the dispute is between two groups of society. Further, a criminal case lodged by one group against the other group is also pending. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent officer to maintain law and order in his jurisdiction had passed the said order. As such, the impugned order, is not against the civil rights of both parties since the learned Revenue Divisional Officer had not decided the title under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above revision. As such, the impugned order, is not against the civil rights of both parties since the learned Revenue Divisional Officer had not decided the title under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above revision. 10. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in B.Ka.5806/2003/C, on the file of the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Krishnagiri, dated 29.08.2003, is confirmed. Accordingly ordered.