JUDGMENT

R. N. BISWAL, J. — The order dated 16.10.2004 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Puri in Criminal Misc. case No.439 of 2004 arising out of a proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. wherein he directed the S.D.O., CESCO, Puri Division-II (2nd party No.1) to restore power supply to the 2nd party No.2 keeping in view the decision of C.D. case No.166 of 2004 and avoiding the disputed plot Nos.285, 286 and 287 is under challenge by the 2nd party No.2 in this revision.

2. The present petitioner was the 2nd party No.2 while Opp.Party Nos.1 to 3 were the 1st party and O.P. No.4, the S.D.O., CESCO, Puri Division No.II at Red Cross Road was the 2nd party No.1 before the Court below in Crl. Misc. case No.439 of 2004.

3. As per the case of the 1st party the disputed property as described in Schedule A and B of the petition under Section 144 Cr.P.C. originally belonged to Radha Mohan Dev Bije at vil¬lage Naskari Patna, the private deity of Bhabani Prusty, Radhamon Prusty and other Prusty family members of village Kadalibari Patna Samil Bharatipur. Late Agadhu Bhatta, the grandfather of the 1st party members was inducted as a permanent tenant to the aforesaid property by Damodar Prusty, the then Managing Marfatdar of the deity on 02.03.1938 through one “Anumati Patra” and given physical possession of the same. After being inducted as a ten¬ant, late Agadhu Bhatta excavated a tank in schedule B property and raised paddy crops in rest of the disputed property and paid rent to Damodar Prusty. After death of Agadhu Bhatta his son late Narayan Bhatta continued cultivation over the said land as tenant till his death, whereafter the 1st party members cultivated the disputed land in the same capacity and thereby acquired occupancy right. After vesting of the disputed land on the State in the year 1963, it was illegally and fraudulently settled in favour of the deity and the Prusty Family as marfatdar. Since there was dispute between the 1st party and Prusty family in respect of schedule A property the first party members filed a suit for occupancy right and permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Puri vide T.S. No.406 of 1998 which was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal of the suit the 1st party members preferred appeal impleading also Opp.Party No.2 as representative of the Public. Under such cir¬cumstances the said Opp.Party No.2 in collusion with the 2nd party No.1 tried to raise an electric pillar on the disputed land to draw electric line to his house, illegally constructed by him in the middle of the disputed plot No.285 of schedule-B of the petition. It is learnt that the 2nd party No.2 arranged anti-social elements and deadly weapons to create breach of peace in the locality, in the event of protest made by the 1st party members against illegal raising of electric pillar and drawing electric wire to take power supply over the disputed land. So the 1st party members initiated the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the 2nd party members from interfering with their peaceful possession of the land as de¬scribed in detail in schedule A and B of the petition by raising any electric pillar or drawing any electric line over a schedule land. On receipt of the petition under Section 144 Cr.P.C. the learned Executive Magistrate called for a report from the local police. In his report the local police stated that two criminal cases under Section 107 Cr.P.C. bearing Nos.458/2004 and 459/2004 against both the parties were under subjudice. During pendency of the proceeding the 2nd party No.2 filed a memo stating that he had no objection if necessary orders were passed and electric connection is allowed to be given to his premises through any other plot. Under such circumstances the Executive Magistrate held as follows :

1) This Court is not the proper forum to decide right, title and interest of both the parties over the disputed plots.

2) This Court is only concerned to breach of pea