JUDGMENT : 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/second party being aggrieved by the order passed by IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Crl.RP.No.171/2016 dated 18.02.2017. 2. Brief facts leading to the case are that, respondent No.2 is the Trust in the name of Sri Siddeshwara Temple Trust. The said Trust is also having the property and ancient big temple in the village Melkunda. The said temple is having so many devotees surrounding the village and one Baradi family has donated the land bearing Sy.No.114 measuring 30 acres of land to the said Siddeshwara Temple and the said family is looking after the affairs of the temple. The said Trust decided to develop the temple and as such, a Trust was constituted and registered on 10.11.1998. But subsequently, they learnt that some antisocial elements belonging to Kuruba community have created another Trust committee in the name of Malingaray Charitable Trust and tried to inaugurate on 06.05.2016 without any base over the property belonging to Siddeshwara Temple. In the meanwhile, a suit for injunction was filed in O.S.No.236/2016 by respondent No.2 and obtained the injunction against the said Trust. It is further alleged that the said temple is performing jathra as per the custom and in order to have security and protection, a request was made to respondent No.1-Taluka Executive Magistrate to provide the security. But respondent No.1 by joining his hands with Kuruba community people on 18.10.2016 passed an illegal order without any basis by taking the law into their hands and issued direction to stop the jathra proceedings by alleging that the members of the Trust committee and other people by taking law into their hands are disturbing the peace. He has further passed an order under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., in criminal proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Taluka Executive Magistrate on 29.10.2016 passed an order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., without considering the civil suit pending. Against the said order, a criminal revision petition came to be filed in Crl.R.P.No.171/2016 before the IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petition by order dated 18.02.2017 by setting aside the order of the Taluka Executive Magistrate and while passing the order, Tahsildar, Kalaburagi, was directed to deliver the possession of the immovable property bearing panchayat No.1-44 to respondent No.2-Trust. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petition by order dated 18.02.2017 by setting aside the order of the Taluka Executive Magistrate and while passing the order, Tahsildar, Kalaburagi, was directed to deliver the possession of the immovable property bearing panchayat No.1-44 to respondent No.2-Trust. Being aggrieved by the said order, the second party is present before the Court. 3. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that though there is interim order of the Civil Court, the Taluka Executive Magistrate ought not to have passed any order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Though respondent No.2 was not in possession of the property, by virtue of the order, they have been put in possession. He further contends that the Taluka Executive Magistrate should have passed a preliminary order before passing the final order for having satisfied that the dispute is likely to cause breach of peace and there is an emergency to make such order for the purpose of protection of property in dispute. But the Magistrate without satisfying the conditions by exceeding the jurisdiction has passed the impugned order and as such, the said order is illegal. In order to substantiate the said fact, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Kartarsingh Narainsingh and another vs Lallusingh Padamsingh and others reported in AIR 1962 MADHYA PRADESH 104 (V 49 C 36). He has further contended that the said order is capricious and malafide and without application of mind. He has also contended that the only point which could have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge is that, who is in possession of the property and if there was any disturbance, the possession of the property should have been given to third party or it could have been retained with the Tahsildar instead of giving possession to respondent No.2. He has further contended that the order passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., is not sustainable in law and it suffers from legal infirmities. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that no revision lies over a revision petition as such, the revision petition is not maintainable. He has further contended that the order passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., is not sustainable in law and it suffers from legal infirmities. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that no revision lies over a revision petition as such, the revision petition is not maintainable. He has also contended that when the matter was seized before the civil Court, the Taluka Executive Magistrate ought not to have passed the order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he prays for remanding the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and I have given my conscious attention to the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. It is an admitted fact that a civil suit was filed in O.S.No.236/2016 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, and therein, a temporary injunction was granted in favour of respondent No.2 herein. Though the civil suit was pending, respondent No.1-Taluka Executive Magistrate passed the order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., on 29.10.2016. The questions which remain for consideration are that whether the order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is in accordance with law and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by allowing the petition and by setting aside the order of the Taluka Executive Magistrate directing respondent No.1 herein to deliver the possession of the immovable property to the revision petitioner therein is sustainable in law? 7. It is well established principle of law that mere apprehension of breach of peace does not constitute a case of emergency. The Taluka Executive Magistrate before passing an order of attachment he must be satisfied on the material on record about the existence of situation of emergency and must explain the circumstances as to why he considered it to be a case of emergency. Thereafter, he has to make an enquiry under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., and if none of the parties was in actual possession of subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute till the competent Court determines the rights of the parties. If one of the party is in possession, he cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency. If one of the party is in possession, he cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 366 . In the said decision, it has been specifically observed that the Taluka Executive Magistrate before passing the order has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists and he has to ascertain who is in possession of the disputed property. Thereafter, he has to pass the orders. 8. On perusal of the records, it would indicate that the Taluka Executive Magistrate has not made any preliminary enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Section 145 of Cr.P.C., and even he has not satisfied about who is in possession of the properties. The reasons assigned by the Tahsildar before initiating proceedings is, as per the direction given by the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Kalaburagi, he passed the order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The said order itself speaks that the Tahsildar has not applied his mind to satisfy himself about the existence of situation of emergency and he has been swayed away by the directions issued by the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi. In this behalf, the order of the Taluka Executive Magistrate dated 29.10.2016 suffers from the said infirmities and it is not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision quoted supra. Even the said order does not speak anything about the civil dispute pending between the parties. When the matter is seized before the civil Court, the order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is not in accordance with law and the said order is capricious and malafide and as such, the said order is liable to be set aside. 9. As could be seen from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, though by relying upon the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is not at all sustainable in law and has rightly set aside the order, but without ascertaining as to who is in possession of the immovable property has directed to deliver the possession of the immovable property to respondent No.2 herein. To that extent, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Even the learned Sessions Judge has not kept in view the object of Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C., and without making the preliminary enquiry as contemplated under the law, he has passed the said order which is also not maintainable in law and as such, the said order is also liable to be set aside. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of the impugned order he has been dispossessed and the possession has been delivered to respondent No.2. When an injunction order was passed by the civil Court, a direction to deliver the possession ought not to have been issued by the learned Sessions Judge. He ought to have set aside the order or he could have remitted back the case to be considered afresh in accordance with law, not doing so, has also affected the rights of the parties. 11. Keeping in view the fact that the order passed by the learned Taluka Executive Magistrate is not sustainable in law, I feel that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge to that extent is liable to be confirmed and insofar as the delivery of possession to respondent No.2 is concerned, it is liable to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Taluka Executive Magistrate to reconsider the said aspect in the light of the principles laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted supra and pass a suitable order in accordance with law. 12. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following: ORDER : The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Crl.R.P.No.171/2016 dated 18.02.2017 is set aside and consequently, the order of the Taluka Executive Magistrate in its file No.REV/MAG No.43/2016-17 dated 29.10.2016 is also set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Taluka Executive Magistrate and the Tahsildar, Kalaburagi, with a direction to pass a suitable order by keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as indicated above.