JUDGMENT : (V.G. ARUN, J.) These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 27.07.2024 of the Station House Officer, Adimaly Police Station, and of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Idukki, dated 28.07.2024. The events that led to the issuance of those orders are as under; For ease of reference, the parties and the Exhibits are described as in W.P.(C).No.28291 of 2024. Respondents 7 to 9 companies are together having ownership of 288.5316 acres of land, named Kallar Valley Cardamom Estate in Anaviratty village in Idukki District. The 10 th respondent company is in ownership of the adjoining parcel of land admeasuring 14.500 acres with buildings thereon. The petitioner, along with his wife and two sons, entered into Ext.P2 leave and licence agreement with respondents 7 to 9 for conducting agricultural operations in the 288.5316 acres of land belonging to respondents 7 to 9 from 01.08.2021 to 31.03.2031. In Ext.P2, the licence fee payable is fixed as Rs.1,15,20,000/- per year up to 31.07.2027 and Rs.1,26,72,000/-, from 01.08.2027 to 31.03.2031. According to the petitioner, respondents 7 to 10 had orally permitted him to use the adjacent 14.500 acres also, since the manager's bungalow, office room, dyer unit, employees' quarters and store room are situated therein. After execution of the leave and licence agreement, dispute arose when the cheques issued by the petitioner towards licence fee got dishonoured for want of funds, resulting in respondents 7 to 9 initiating prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Apprehending that the respondents may take coercive measures to evict him from the estate, the petitioner filed O.S.No.21 of 2023 before the Munsiff's Court, Adimaly. On their part, respondents 7 to 10 moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal Sessions Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad. The application having been dismissed by Ext.P9 order, respondents 7 to 10 preferred a Commercial Court Appeal before the High Court of Telangana, wherein Ext.P10 judgment was rendered, permitting respondents 7 to 10 to appoint a Manager to supervise the plucking of cardamom. The High Court also observed that the petitioner will be entitled to pluck cardamom on payment of licence fee with respect to Schedule A property (288.5316 acres), until the Arbitrator decides the petition filed by the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. The High Court also observed that the petitioner will be entitled to pluck cardamom on payment of licence fee with respect to Schedule A property (288.5316 acres), until the Arbitrator decides the petition filed by the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It was further observed that the appellants will be entitled to claim relief with regard to Schedule B property (14.500 acres) in their application under Section 17. The petitioner challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court and that appeal was disposed of by Ext.P11 order, deleting paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment (Ext.P10) containing the observation regarding the entitlement of respondents 7 to 10 to stake claim with respect to Schedule B property, in their application under Section 17 of the Act. Thereafter, Ext.P15 order was passed by the High Court of Telangana, in the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by respondents 7 to 10 and a former Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court appointed as the sole Arbitrator. Pursuant to that order, respondents 7 to 10 filed their statement of claim before the Arbitrator and the petitioner filed his statement of defence as well as counter claim. In the meanwhile, both sides approached this Court seeking police protection and by Exts.P12 and P13 judgments, the police was directed to maintain law and order in the area. While matters stood thus, at about 10.30 am on 26.07.2024, the 11 th respondent along with 20 others tried to enter the estate bungalow situated in the 14.5 acres (B schedule). The petitioner and his men resisted the move resulting in both groups attacking each other with dangerous weapons and country bombs. In the fight that ensued, persons on both sides sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the Police intervened and separated the two groups and taking into account the possibility of worsening of the law and order situation, the Station House Officer, Adimaly issued Ext.P23 order and took over possession of the 14.500 acres and the buildings thereon for 24 hours, by exercising the power under Section 67 of the Kerala Police Act. As per Ext.P24 order issued the next day, the District Magistrate, Idukki affirmed Ext.P23 order and extended the period of take over for 59 days from 27.07.2024. 2. As per Ext.P24 order issued the next day, the District Magistrate, Idukki affirmed Ext.P23 order and extended the period of take over for 59 days from 27.07.2024. 2. Heard, Senior Advocate P.B.Krishnan for the petitioner, Adv.G.Sreekumar (Chelur) for respondents 7 to 10 and Senior Government Pleader Smt. Deepa Narayanan for the State. 3. The learned counsel on both sides addressed detailed arguments, in an attempt to establish the right of their party to have possession of the 14.500 acres. On behalf of the petitioner it was asserted that he was permitted to occupy the 14.500 acres and the buildings therein, while Counsel for respondents 7 to 10 refuted the claim with equal vehemence and submitted that there was no such understanding and the petitioner had forcibly taken possession from their Manager under the cover of police protection order issued by this Court. This Court is not expected to delve into those contentious issues, since the disputed questions of fact are to be decided in the civil suit pending before the Munsiff Court, Adimaly. 4. In order to answer the contention that the District Magistrate could not have issued Ext.P24 order, extending the period of takeover, it is essential to carefully read Section 67 of the Kerala Police Act extracted herein below; “ 67. Taking over possession of building and premises for preventing riot.– (1) The senior most Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector present at the spot may temporarily close or take over any building or other place for a period not exceeding twenty four hours for preventing or suppressing any imminent riot or grave disturbance of peace and may remove all or any persons therefrom or allow entry thereon only for such fixed persons on such conditions as he deems fit and all persons concerned shall be bound to behave themselves in accordance with such orders: Provided that while taking such steps the difficulties caused to women, children, senior citizens and differently abled persons, etc. shall be taken into account and such difficulties shall be avoided as far as possible: Provided further that for giving and implementing such directions, beyond twenty four hours and upto sixty days, orders in writing of the District Magistrate shall be necessary. (2) The District Magistrate may, on his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person by an order under sub-section (1), cancel or amend any such order. (2) The District Magistrate may, on his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person by an order under sub-section (1), cancel or amend any such order. “ 5. While Section 67(1) empowers the senior Police Officer present at the spot to temporarily close or takeover any building or other place for a period not exceeding twenty four hours, the 2 nd proviso makes it mandatory for such officer to obtain orders of the District Magistrate in writing for implementing the directions in Section 67(1) beyond twenty four hours. Further, sub-section (2) of Section 67 confers the District Magistrate with the power to cancel or amend any order under Section 67(1), either on his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person. A perusal of Ext.P24 reveals that the action taken as per Ext.P23 was affirmed and the period of take over extended after consideration of all relevant aspects and the recommendation of the District Police Chief. The extension being in accordance with the 2 nd proviso to Section 67(1), the challenge on the ground of procedural violation is rejected. 6. The period for which the property was taken over as per Exts.P23 and P24 is now over. In his counter affidavit, the Station House Officer has stated that possession of the area covered by Ext.P24 shall be handed over to any party as directed by this Court. But, for issuing such a direction, this Court should first be convinced that handing over possession of the property to one among the parties will not give rise to any law and order situation. Considering the manner in which members of both parties had attacked each other on the previous occasion, the nature of weapons used, and continuance of the animosity, recurrence of law and order situation cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances, it will be in public interest to keep the property under attachment to prevent peace and tranquility in the locality being breached in the scramble for taking over possession of the property. Therefore, I find this to be a fit case for the District Magistrate to exercise the power under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the District Collector & District Magistrate, Idukki to initiate proceedings under Section 164 of BNSS and, if necessary, pass an order of attachment under Section 165(1). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the District Collector & District Magistrate, Idukki to initiate proceedings under Section 164 of BNSS and, if necessary, pass an order of attachment under Section 165(1). Appropriate action in this regard shall be taken within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until then, the order of status quo of this Court shall continue to be in force.