K.S.LODHA, J. - (1.)SALLA Ram, party No. 2 in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC has tiled this revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu dated 7 -11 -83 by which he accepted the revision of Chunaram, party No. 1 in these proceedings and set -aside the order of the learned Sub -Divisional Officer, Churu dated 6 -9 -83 appointing the Thesildar as Receiver on the land in dispute.
(2.)I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned P.P. and have gone through the record.
I am of the opinion that the revision can be disposed of in short. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC in this case were initiated on 28 -1 -81 when the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order. It appears that an application under Section 146 Cr. PC, had already been filed and arguments on that application had been heard by the learned Magistrate on 24 -8 -81, however, no orders on that application were passed till 2 -8 -83 when the party No. 2 again moved the Court drawing its attention to the fact that the application under Section 146(1) remains un -disposed of After hearing the parties on this application the learned Magistrate passed the under under dispute on 6 9 -83. His finding was that looking to the dispute between the parties regarding the land and the changing position of possession every time there appears to be danger to peace and on this he proceeded to attach the land in dispute and appoint the Tehsildar as its Receiver The armed Sessions Judge, however, found that there was absolutely no material before the learned Magistrate to come to the conclusion that there was any emergent danger and therefore, he had np jurisdiction to attach the land and appoint a Receiver. How, therefore, set -aside the order of the learned Magistrate.

(3.)THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was material before the learned Magistrate to satisfy him about the emergent danger of breach of peace and when after taking into consideration that material and properly discussing it, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there was ground for appointing the Receiver, the learned Sessions Judge could net have interfered with that order in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. In this connection he placed reliance upon R.N. Bhutani v. Miss Mani J. Desai and Ors 1968 SC 1443 and State of Orissa v. Makuta Sahu and Ors 1919 SC 663.