JUDGMENT 1. This rule was granted to consider the propriety of an order under sec. 107, Cr.P.C., binding down the second party to keep the peace. The first party and the second party are joint owners of certain lands Said to measure about five hundred bighas. The first party, without the consent of his co-owners the second party, proceeded to make a measurement of the lands in question for the purpose of ascertaining how much land had been diluviated and what rent the raiyats were liable to pay : and this action of his was objected to by the other side, the result being that a breach of the peace was anticipated and proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taken. 2. It has been contended before us that the survey and measurement which the first party was proceeding to make was illegal and that the second party was therefore justified in objecting. 3. This contention appears to he borne out by the Bengal Tenancy Act. Sec. 90 of that Act provides that "a landlord shall not, without the consent of the tenant or the written permission of the Collector, be entitled to measure land more than once in ten years except (amongst other grounds which do not apply): where the area of the tenure or holding is liable by reason of alluvion or diluvion to vary from year to year, and the rent payable depends on the area" and sec. 188 of the same Act declares that "where two or more persons are joint landlords, anything which the landlord is under this Act required or authorized to do must be done either by both or all those persons acting together, or by an agent authorized to act on behalf of both or all of them." 4. In the present case the action of the first party was not authorized by his co-sharer the second party, and, therefore, the survey and settlement which they were endeavouring to make was illegal. The Courts below were of opinion that the measurement intended was not contemplated by the Bengal Tenancy Act but we think that in this they were in error. 5. If the survey and settlement were illegal, then the second party was justified in objecting. It is not suggested that any force was used. The Courts below were of opinion that the measurement intended was not contemplated by the Bengal Tenancy Act but we think that in this they were in error. 5. If the survey and settlement were illegal, then the second party was justified in objecting. It is not suggested that any force was used. Apart from this both parties were tried together but only the second party has been bound over, although it would appear that any likelihood of a breach of the peace was really due to the action of the first party. We think the rule must be made absolute and the order binding down the second party set aside.