Roy, J. - (1.) On the 28th of May, 1951, Data Ram, Musaddi, Pitambar, Naqil and Chhotan submitted an application in the court of S.D.M. Deoband alleging that three plots of land bearing Nos. 1, 72 and 73 pertaining to khewat No. 23, situate at mauza Fatehullahpur, which was the common land of the village at one time, had been allotted to the applicants by the District Planning Officer for cultivation. They contended that the area of these plots was 74 bighas and 13 biswas, out of which 24 bighas and 5 biswas had been brought by them under cultivation. They further contended that the opposite party Hari Singh, Lakhpat, Baru, Jaimal, Dharam Singh, Ram Sarup, Amar Singh, Barkat, Mamraj and Rajpal, who had their land adjacent to this land, were trying to interfere with the possession of the applicants and there was, therefore, a likelihood of a breach of peace. It was alleged that the opposite -parties had made plans to take possession over this land. The Sub - Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the Station Officer of police station Rampur. He made a report on the 31st of May, 1951, saying that there was a likelihood of breach of peace, and suggesting that attachment of the property should be made.
(2.) On the 2nd of June, 1951, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate issued an order for attachment of the property. The property was really attached on the 3rd of June, 1951. On the 6th of June, 1951, Bulla made an application to the S.D.M to the effect that in the teeth of the attachment the opposite -party had come on the land and had sown paddy over the field on the 5th of June, 1951. Another report was called for from the Station Officer and he made a report on the 9th of June, 1951, supporting the allegations of Bulla.
(3.) Thereafter the application under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was transferred to another Magistrate who, after considering the written statements that had been filed by the parties under Sec. 145 and after hearing the evidence that had been produced by them, came to the conclusion that the property was not sufficiently identifiable in the sense that there was no daulbandi or boundary marks. He further held that the evidence on record made it obvious that the contending parties were in joint possession and, as such, no order could be made under Sec. 145, Cr.P.C. He further held that since this portion of the joint land had been cultivated by the opposite -party and the crop that was attached had been sown by the opposite -party over this land, the value of the crop which was in deposit in court as also the attached land should be released in favour of the opposite party. As against that order an application in revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur, who rejected it on the 23rd of October, 1952.;