Pending Revenue Case No Bar to Section 146 CrPC Receiver

Pending Revenue Case No Bar to Receiver Under Section 146 CrPC Without Interim Protection: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 29 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a revisional order directing a receiver to be appointed over disputed land under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC (paras 1, 17-18). Pending civil or revenue proceedings do not by themselves bar such preventive proceedings where no effective interim protection has been granted; Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey lays down no absolute bar (paras 9-11, 14). The Commission Report, revenue records and earlier preventive proceedings showed a continuing dispute over possession (paras 13, 15).

Key holdings

Pending revenue proceedings did not bar the receiver, as no interim injunction or protective order had been granted (paras 11, 14).

Amresh Tiwari, where a civil court had ordered status quo, lays down no absolute bar on Section 145 proceedings (paras 10-11).

Possession before 2021 was not conclusive; the Commission Report, khatedari entries and earlier preventive proceedings showed a continuing dispute (paras 12-13).

The receiver preserves the property without deciding title or possession, which remain for the competent court (paras 16, 19).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioners and respondent No. 2 made rival claims to possession of agricultural land (para 2). Proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC, begun on an apprehended breach of peace, were dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Atru on 20 April 2023 (para 2). On respondent No. 2's revision, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Atru set that order aside on 11 November 2025 and directed a receiver to be appointed (paras 1, 3). The petitioners said they were in possession, no imminent breach of peace was shown and the revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction, citing Ramji Ram and Munshi Ram (paras 4-5). The Public Prosecutor and respondent No. 2 supported the order (para 6).

Court's Findings

The question was whether the revisional court rightly set aside the SDO's order and directed a receiver (para 8). Sections 145 and 146 are preventive: they avert a breach of peace over possession of immovable property and do not decide title (para 9). Pending civil or revenue proceedings do not by themselves bar them, particularly where no effective interim protection has been granted, though attachment and a receiver depend on each case (para 9). In Amresh Tiwari the Supreme Court restored the discontinuance of Section 145 proceedings because a civil court had ordered status quo, but laid down no absolute bar (paras 10-11). The Revenue Court had granted no injunction or protective order to either side (paras 11, 14). Possession before 2021 was not conclusive for the later period (para 12). The Commission Report did not clearly establish the petitioners' possession; revenue records show the land in respondent No. 2's khatedari, the petitioners produced no evidence of khatedari rights, and an earlier incident of alleged interference with the crop was followed by preventive proceedings against them (para 13). Ramji Ram and Munshi Ram, where the material showed no imminent threat to peace, were distinguished on facts (para 15).

Legal Principle

Sections 145 and 146 CrPC are preventive and do not decide title. Mere pendency of civil or revenue proceedings does not bar them where no effective interim protection has been granted; attaching the property and appointing a receiver turn on the rival possession claims and the material showing an apprehended breach of peace (paras 9, 11, 14).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For parties to a land dispute already before a revenue court, this judgment shows that a pending case alone will not keep a Section 145/146 receiver away: what counted was that the Revenue Court had granted no injunction or other protective order over possession (paras 9, 11, 14). The Court also weighed the Commission Report, khatedari entries and earlier preventive proceedings, not past possession alone (paras 12-13). A party relying on a pending case should place any protective order on record. The receiver decides nothing on title (para 16). Compare Pawan Gaur, which held that preventive action under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC must rest on cogent material showing a real and imminent threat to public peace.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey (2000) 4 SCC 440
Explained Discussed at ¶ 10, 11
The Court quoted para 14 of the Supreme Court's judgment: Section 145 proceedings should not continue where a civil suit for possession or declaration of title to the same property is pending and the civil court can grant relief protecting it, but the Supreme Court did not say such proceedings never lie when a civil suit is filed (para 10). The Court noted that the Supreme Court restored the discontinuance there because a status quo order had already been passed, read the judgment as laying down no absolute bar, and held that here no interim injunction or other protective order had been granted (para 11).
Ramji Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6804/2022, decided on 11.03.2025
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 5, 15
Co-ordinate Bench order cited for the petitioners: proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC and the appointment of a receiver need circumstances satisfying the statutory requirements, not merely a dispute over immovable property (para 5). The Court distinguished it on facts: the proceedings there were quashed because the material did not establish an imminent threat to public peace, whereas here the material showed a subsisting possession dispute (para 15).
Munshi Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2917
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 5, 15
Co-ordinate Bench decision cited for the petitioners on the same point as Ramji Ram (para 5). The Court distinguished it on facts: the proceedings there were quashed because the material did not establish an imminent threat to public peace warranting attachment, whereas here the rival claims, the Commission Report and the other material showed a subsisting possession dispute (para 15).