Preventive possession proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are not barred by vacant land eviction law between private claimants.

A statutory bar on jurisdiction over eviction from vacant land does not extend to a preventive proceeding under Section 145 CrPC between rival private claimants to possession, because that proceeding is meant to preserve peace and maintain possession until lawful determination, not to effect eviction by the competent authority. Where attachment has been made under Section 146, the Magistrate must decide possession under Section 145; if one party is found in possession, including deemed possession where the proviso applies, attachment should be withdrawn, but if possession cannot be determined, attachment may continue until rights are adjudicated by a competent court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bar of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975 applied to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 between private claimants to possession. (ii) What course the Magistrate should adopt in a proceeding under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code where attachment of the disputed property has been made.

Issue (i): Whether the bar of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975 applied to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 between private claimants to possession.

Analysis: The bar in Section 8 was held to be directed against suits and proceedings concerning eviction by the Competent Authority under the Act, not against disputes of possession between private persons. A proceeding under Section 145 is preventive in character and is designed to preserve public peace by maintaining possession until eviction in due course of law. Where the dispute is only between rival private claimants, the Competent Authority does not come into the picture and the statutory bar is not attracted.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional bar did not apply, and the proceeding did not abate.

Issue (ii): What course the Magistrate should adopt in a proceeding under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code where attachment of the disputed property has been made.

Analysis: The continuation or withdrawal of attachment depends on the result of the inquiry under Section 145. If one party is found to be in possession, including deemed possession where the proviso to Section 145(4) applies, the Magistrate should declare such possession and withdraw the attachment under the proviso to Section 146(1). If possession cannot be determined or neither party is found in possession, the attachment may continue until rights are determined by a competent court, with recourse, where necessary, to Section 146(2).

Conclusion: The Magistrate was directed to proceed under Sections 145 and 146 according to law and to decide the dispute on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the contrary orders were set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with the statutory scheme governing preventive possession proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on court jurisdiction to evict persons from vacant land does not extend to a preventive possession proceeding under Section 145 of the Code between rival private claimants, because such a proceeding is not one for eviction by the competent authority but for maintaining peace pending lawful determination of possession.

---