Kalyan Dutta, J. - (1.) This is an application-in-revision filed by Jodha Ram and Others against the preliminary order and the order of attachment of the land in dispute passed by the District Magistrate, Churu, on 5-1-1976, in a proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be stated as follows On 5-1-1976. the District Magistrate, Churu, initiated proceedings under S. 145, new Criminal Procedure Code upon some information that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace exists concerning 'Johar' and pasture land situated in villages Bachrara and Ghumandi between Jodha Ram and Others on one side and Pabudan Singh and Others on the opposite side. He made an order in writing stating the grounds of his satisfaction and requiring the parties concerned in the dispute to attend his court on a specified date and time and to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. At the time of passing the preliminary order, the District Magistrate considered the case to be one of emergency and, therefore, attached the land in dispute under sub-section (l)of S. 145, new Criminal Procedure Code. Aggrieved by these simultaneous orders, Jodha Ram and Others have come-up in revision to this court.
(3.) The revision-petition was admitted and notices were issued to Pabudan Singh and Other non-petitioners. Mr. P. N. Datt appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners and contested the revision-petition. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was no material on record to show that there was existence of dispute relating to 'Johar' and pasture land and apprehension breach of the peace because of it and that the District Magistrate, Churu, wrongly assumed jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S: 145, Cr. P. C. (new) against the petitioners. It was further argued by Mr. Bishnol for the petitioners that the power of attachment in case of emergency under Sub-Section (1) of S. 146, Cr. P.C. is confined to cases in which the danger of breach of the peace is so imminent as to call for prompt action to prevent it. According to him, the District Magistrate acted without necessary data and his order of attachment does not show any material on which he based his conclusion of imminent danger of breach of the peace necessitating attachment on the ground of emergency. In short, the argument of Mr. Bishnol was that an order of attachment can be passed without issuing notice to the other side, but the attachment should not be ordered as a matter of routine in the absence of necessary data showing imminent danger of breach of the peace. In support of his above contention, Mr Bishnol relied on Mushtaq Ali v. Bulaki Chand, AIR 1956 Bhopal 2 and Birma v. Aidan, X.Y.Y.R.R. 1954 RLW 736;