ORDER : Heard Sri D.L.Ladkhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the records. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :- "To quash the order dated 28.12.2022 bearing No.San/Kam/M.A.G/75/2022-23 passed by respondent No.2 vide document No.VII.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1 Petitioners and 4th respondent are disputing over a land in Sy.No.264/5 of Yaradona village, Karatagi taluk, Koppal district. The land measures about 6 acres 2 guntas and there are rival claims in respect of the land. Smt.Shivamma wife of Channabasappa claims that the land belongs to her and there was a survey conducted at an undisputed point of time 1983-84 and suppressing the said aspect of the matter, by forging an application said to have been signed by Shivamma or her predecessors and the petitioners herein, a resurvey was sought and a sketch has been prepared suppressing the real fact. Moment, the 4th respondent came to know about the same, she has preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.101977/2022 and the same is pending for consideration before this Court. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners herein said to have made attempts to dispossess the 4th respondent resulting in breech of peace and therefore, she complained to the jurisdictional police and jurisdictional police registered a complaint in Crime No.164/2022 on 14.08.2022 for the offences punishable U/sec.349, 379, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. Inspector who conducted the investigation and also taking note of the dispute over the disputed land, registered one more report namely preventive action report in PAR No.52/2022 on 15.08.2022 U/sec.107 Cr.P.C. and referred the same to the Tahsildar for taking action against the petitioners and 4th respondent U/sec.107 Cr.P.C. 3.2 The learned Taluka Executive Magistrate after issuing the notice to the petitioners herein obtained a bond from the petitioners for keeping the peace and tranquility in the area. Despite the same, there was a complaint by the 4th respondent to the Taluka Executive Magistrate U/sec.145(6) Cr.P.C. seeking interim protection with regard to the possession of the disputed land by the 4th respondent. Despite the same, there was a complaint by the 4th respondent to the Taluka Executive Magistrate U/sec.145(6) Cr.P.C. seeking interim protection with regard to the possession of the disputed land by the 4th respondent. The same was considered by the Taluka Executive Magistrate and an order came to be passed on 28.12.2022 stating that 4th respondent is in possession of the disputed land and the same shall not be disturbed by the petitioners herein and Police Sub-Inspector, Karatagi was directed to accord police help. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court in this petition with the aforesaid prayer. 4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri D.L.Ladkhan, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that portion of the land in the said survey number was acquired for the railway lane and therefore, the measurement of the land furnished by the 4th respondent is incorrect and having lost land in acquisition, it is the 4th respondent who has encroached on the property of the petitioners which resulted in petitioners seeking for resurvey of the land and obtained the resurvey which is now subject matter of the W.P.No.101977/2022 and the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Taluka Executive Magistrate while passing the impugned order and therefore the impugned order is per se illegal and sought for quashing of the same. 5. Per contra, Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the 4th respondent vehemently contended that the petitioners have illegally filed an application for resurvey by forging the signature of the 4th respondent and his predecessors got the land resurveyed clandestinely resulting in dispute over the land which is in possession of the 4th respondent and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the Tahsildar has taken into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and passed appropriate order by exercising the power vested in this Court U/sec.145(6) Cr.P.C. which is perfectly in order and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that admittedly there is a dispute as to the boundaries in respect of the property said to be in possession of the petitioners and 4th respondent in Sy.No.245/6 of Yaradona village, Karatagi taluk. 9. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that admittedly there is a dispute as to the boundaries in respect of the property said to be in possession of the petitioners and 4th respondent in Sy.No.245/6 of Yaradona village, Karatagi taluk. 9. The resurvey sketch issued by the survey authorities is being challenged before this Court and is in the consideration of this Court in pending W.P.No.101977/2022. Admittedly, till the validity of the survey sketch is decided one way or other, the status quo of the property is to be maintained. 10. When the petitioners said to have made an attempt to dispossess the 4th respondent, 4th respondent lodged a complaint with police and an FIR came to be registered by the police which is pending for investigation. 11. In the meantime, on 15.08.2022, the Police Sub-Inspector, Karatagi Police filed a report with the Taluka Executive Magistrate U/sec.107 Cr.P.C. after recording a preventive action report in PAR No.52/2022. Based on such PAR No.52/2022, the Tahsildar issued notice to the petitioners herein and the 4th respondent on 22.08.2022, after considering the relevant materials on record, petitioners have been directed to execute a bond and they have already executed a bond. Action sought to be initiated against the petitioners in seeking bond to be executed is not questioned by the petitioners herein. 12. Again a complaint came to be filed by the 4th respondent alleging the dispossession and therefore, action was initiated by the Taluka Executive Magistrate U/sec.145(6) Cr.P.C. and an order came to be passed on 28.12.2022 after hearing the petitioners herein. While so passing the order, learned Taluka Executive Magistrate took into consideration U/sec.107 Cr.P.C. 13. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners that the survey sketch clearly defeat that the disputed property belongs to the petitioners as the 4th respondent has lost some portion of the land for laying railway lane is matter that is to be decided while considering the validity of the survey sketch prepared by the authorities purportedly on the request of the petitioners. Till the matter is decided on merits in W.P.No.101977/2022 with regard to the validity of the sketch, Taluka Executive Magistrate having recorded a categorical finding that the petitioners are in possession and they should not be disturbed from the possession appears to be reasonable. Till the matter is decided on merits in W.P.No.101977/2022 with regard to the validity of the sketch, Taluka Executive Magistrate having recorded a categorical finding that the petitioners are in possession and they should not be disturbed from the possession appears to be reasonable. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved with regard to the action that has to be taken against them, they may always approach the civil Court to establish their right over the disputed property. 14. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that orders passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate would be subservient to the order that would be passed by the Civil Court as the Civil Court is the only authority which can declare the rights of the parties over a disputed land and not the revenue authorities that too in the preventive action passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. At this stage, Sri D.L.Ladkhan submits that petitioners have already filed O.S.No.7/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gangavathi. 16. Thus, directing the parties to abide by the orders that would be passed by the Civil Court with regard to the disputed land, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this case. 17. After all, the order that has been passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is in the form of maintaining the status quo with regard to the property after ascertaining the coercion of the 4th respondent over the land more so in view of the earlier order passed by the Tahsildar U/sec.107 Cr.P.C., which is not challenged by the petitioners herein. It is made clear that, the impugned order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate would be in force is subject to the orders that would be passed in the pending W.P.No.101977/2022 and the Civil Court in O.S.No.7/2023. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER The petition is dismissed. The order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is subject to the orders that would be passed by this Court in W.P.No.101977/2022 and the decision to be rendered by the duly constituted Civil Court in O.S.No.7/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gangavathi. The observations made by this Court during the course of this order shall not affect the rights of the parties in pending civil suit or writ petition.