JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule has been obtained by Rani Amriteshwari as executrix to the Estate of Raja Fanindra Deb Raikat of Baikantapore, Rup Lal Mistry and others who are the second party in certain proceedings taken under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., by the Deputy Magistrate of Siliguri. The first party consists of Darpa Narain Das and 25 others. There appears to be some chur lands in the river Mohanauda which are covered by stones and shingles by the action of the river. Thee are said to have all along been in possession of the second party, and Rup Lal Mistry states that since 1890 he has been in possession of the same as ijardar under the Raja of Baikantapore and has been supplying stones and shingle as ballast to the Northern Bengal State Railway under a contract with them. He has also erected sonic huts on the chur lands for the purpose of his business. Since 1901 Darpa Narain Das who holds certain jotes under the Baikantapore estate has claimed these chur lands as accretions to his jotes and has endeavoured to obtain possession of the same. Being threatened with criminal proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he instituted a suit on the 21st March 1901 in the Court of the Munsif of Siliguri to recover possession of these chur lands. The proceedings in the Criminal Court were then dropped. Subsequently Darpa Narain Das applied to the Civil Court for an injunction to restrain Rup Lal Mistry and other members of the present second party from taking stones from the chur, but his application was refused, In October 1901 he lodged a charge of trespass against Rap Lal Mistry for erecting huts on the chur land, but it was dismissed. In January 1902 he applied to withdraw his plaint from the Court of the Munsif and this being allowed he filed on the 19th March 1902 a fresh plaint in the Court of the Sub-Judge of Darjeeling for recovery of possession of the lands valuing his claim at Rs. 1,800. On objection raised by the Defendant, the value of the suit was held to be Rs. 15,000. The suit was ostensibly for the recovery of the 180 bighas of chur land of which Darpa Narain alleged that he had been dispossessed. 1,800. On objection raised by the Defendant, the value of the suit was held to be Rs. 15,000. The suit was ostensibly for the recovery of the 180 bighas of chur land of which Darpa Narain alleged that he had been dispossessed. Certain boundaries of the lands were however given and it would appear that the lands within those boundaries have been valued at Rs. 15,000. The suit is under trial in the Court of the Sub-Judge and a Civil Court Amin appears to have been ordered to proceed to the spot and measure and map the lands. 2. In the month of July last, tenants of Darpa Narain appear to have attempted to plough up some of the chur land, but they were stopped by the servants of the Raja. Information was lodged to the Police by the servant of the Raja, and after inquiry a report was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Silignri on the 18th July 1902. On that report the Deputy Magistrate has taken proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P. C. and evidence of the first party appears to have been recorded. On the 30th August last however a rule was obtained from this Court by the second party on the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling and the opposite party to show cause why the proceedings taken by the Deputy Magistrate of Siliguri under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to certain chur lands in dispute between the two parties should not be stayed as taken without jurisdiction on the ground that Darpa Narain Das, one of the parties to the proceedings, having in a civil suit against the said Petitioners stated that he was out of possession of the lands in dispute and has accordingly sued in the Civil Court for recovery of possession, no question of possession can possibly arise between him and any other party. 3. In opposing the rule on behalf of the first party the learned counsel has contended that the land in dispute in the proceedings in the Criminal Court is in excess of the lands which are the subject of the suit in the Civil Court and that as a breach of the peace was apprehended the mere fact that a civil suit had been brought in respect of some of the lands would not deprive the Magistrate of jurisdiction. 4. 4. The lands in dispute in the civil suit were stated to be chur lands on which stones and shingles had been deposited and their area was stated to be 180 bighas. The boundaries of the lands were however also given and on an objection raised by the Defendants (the second party in these proceedings) the value of the lands was held to be Rs. 15,000. This, the learned counsel for the second party has suggested, can hardly be the value of 180 bighas of chur land, and raises the inference that the civil suit really covers more lands. This contention seems to us to have some weight. 5. In the proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., the boundaries of the lands in dispute are given, they are described as chur land in the bed of the Mahananda river and their area is stated to be about 200 bighas. The learned counsel who opposes the rule has contended that about 1,000 bighas of lands are included within the boundaries given in the proceedings, and that at least as to the lands in excess of those in the civil suit the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P. C. 6. In our opinion a Magistrate under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., has power to intervene and pass a temporary order in regard to the possession of the land in dispute only until one or other of the parties applies for or obtains a determination of his rights in a Civil Court. In this case the first party by bringing their suit for recovery of possession in the Civil Court have admitted that the other party are in possession and there was therefore no question as to possession for the Magistrate to decide in proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P. C. If he considered that it was necessary that he should take steps to preserve the peace, it was open to him to take proceedings under provisions of the law other than sec. 145, Cr. P. C. He had no jurisdiction to proceed under sec. 145, Cr. P. C. 7. As to whether the lands which are the subject of the proceeding under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., are in excess of the lands for the recovery of possession of which the first party brought the suit in the Civil Court it is difficult to say. 145, Cr. P. C. 7. As to whether the lands which are the subject of the proceeding under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., are in excess of the lands for the recovery of possession of which the first party brought the suit in the Civil Court it is difficult to say. In their written statements be the Magistrate both parties stated that the boundaries given in the Magistrate's proceeding were vague and the first party expressly stated that the lands specified in the proceeding were the lands in respect of which he had brought the suit in the Civil Court and prayed that the Deputy Magistrate would ascertain and determine the lands in dispute before taking the evidence in the case. In opposition to the rule the learned counsel has however urged before us that it is not open to this Court on the rule which has been granted to enter into the question whether the proceedings are on the face of them defective as they fail to define precisely the lands in dispute. He has, however, raised the question in his arguments and we feel bound to say that as the proceeding under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., drawn up by the Magistrate gives him jurisdiction to determine the question of possession of the land in dispute so in that proceeding he is bound to ascertain and define the land in dispute and that he has no jurisdiction to determine under that proceeding a dispute regarding lands which are not covered by it. We may observe that the area of the land included in the boundaries which are mentioned is given as 200 bighas which is substantially the same as the area of the lands stated to be chur lands in the civil suit. We think that when the question was raised as to the identity of the land in dispute the Magistrate was bound before going further to ascertain and identify the lands so that neither party might be in doubt as to the specific lands in respect of which proceedings were taken. We think that when the question was raised as to the identity of the land in dispute the Magistrate was bound before going further to ascertain and identify the lands so that neither party might be in doubt as to the specific lands in respect of which proceedings were taken. On the face of the proceeding the lands appear to be chur lands of about 200 bighas in area, and as these are substantially the same lands as are covered by the description of the land which are the subject of the civil suit, we consider that the Magistrate under the proceeding had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute as to lands in excess of those referred to in his proceeding. Moreover for reasons previously given even if there are lands other than the chur lands in dispute, it is not clear that they are in excess of the lands which formed the subject of the civil suit. For the above grounds the rule must be made absolute and the proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., in the Magistrate's Court are stayed and set aside.