K. S. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS revision involves a very small question. The SHO, Police Station Rawatsar has filed a complaint against Doongar Ram and Ramu Ram alleging that there was a dispute between two, in respect of the possession of Kills No. 3, 8 and 13/3 of Square No. 192/32 of Chak No. 3 RUM, which was likely to cause a breach of peace. On this the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar purported to take proceedings u/sec. 145 Cr. P C. Notices were issued to both the parties. Doongar Ram filed his reply but Ramu Ram did not file any reply. It appears that oral evidence was taken and some documents were filed by both the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for, the parties, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar by his order dated 12-2-1975, declared that Doongar Ram was in possession over the land in dispute before the filing of the complainant under Section 145 Cr. PC. and declared the possession of Doongar Ram over the land in dispute. Aggrieved of this Ramu Ram filed a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not at all proceed according to law. He never recorded either on 26-6-1984 or on any later date that he had satisfied himself from the Police Report or upon any other information that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peaces existed concerning the land. Thus, there was no basis for initiating the proceeding u/sec. 145 Cr. P. C. He was further of the opinion that on the merits of the matter also there did not appear to be any apprehension of breach of peace, as the land in dispute clearly appeared to have been allotted to and was in possession of Ramu Ram. He accordingly set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate but while doing so, he decla-red the possession of Ramu Ram and quashed the proceedings u/sec. 145 Cr. P. C. by his order dated 15-4-1981. Aggrieved of this Doongar Ram has come up in Revision.
(2.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the learned Additional Sessions Judge has quashed the proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C, holding that neither a preliminary order was issued nor there appeared to be any apprehension of breach of the peace, he could not have declared the possession of Ramu Ram or any of the parties but should have left the parties to get their rights declared in accordance with law. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be sound and deserves to be accepted. When the revision was heard on 21-9-1988, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Ramu Ram had not appeared but today when the case was listed for dictation of judgment, he appeared and I have heard him. He, also, is not in a position to controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had come to the conclusion that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not record any preliminary order regarding his satisfaction that there was likelihood of the breach of the peace in respect of the land in dispute nor such a likeli-hood even appeared from the record, he had no jurisdiction to proceed u/sec. 145 Cr. P. C. and quashed the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should also not have declared the possession of any of the parties. A declaration can be made only if the proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. have properly been initiated and it is proved that a party had been in possession of the land in dispute at the date of the order made under Sub-Section (1 ). If no order under Sub-Section (1) had been passed by the learned Magistrate, the question of declaring the possession of any of the parties did not anise. Therefore, this part of the order of the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside. The Revision is partly allowed. The part of the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar, by which he declared that Ramu Ram was in possession of the land in dispute is set aside. The parties will free to get their rights decided in accordance with law. .;