JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The order complained of is one under sec. 145, Cr. P. G, directing that the second party shall remain in possession of the disputed land unstill evicted there from in due course of law. It appears that there was a dispute with regard to two plots of land extending over an area of 1,200 big has. The police thought that a breach of the peace was likely to occur In connection with these lands and as far as we can it seems to us that the proceedings of the Magistrate were very irregular. In the first place he did not after drawing up the proceeding under sec. 145, issue notices to the parties. He apparently called the parties before him and he says that on the 15th December last Johad Ahmed Chowdhury, brother of Sajjad Ahmed Chowhury, the first party, and Ganga Charan Saha, agent of Parbati Charan Roy, met him with a view to settle the dispute amicably, but no agreement could be arrived at and so at the request of Johad Ahmed a proceeding under sec. 145, Cr, p. C., was drawn up and the 19th December was fixed In the presence of both the two persons, Johad Ahmed Chowdhury and Ganga Charan Saba for enquiry in the case. As far as we can see, no notices, as required by sec. 145, Cr. P. C, were served on either of the parties. We see it is recorded in the order-sheet that notice was taken to the Am mukhtear of the 1st party, Babu Paresh Nath Das, on the 19th December, but he refused to receive it. Then two mukhtears, Babu Kalikanta Sircar and Lai Mahamed Haji, appeared In Court on 'behalf of the first party on that date. They did not file any mukhtearnama so they were not listened to. The Magistrate then proceeded to take the evidence of one witness of the name of Ganga Charan Guha on behalf of the second party and decided that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace and that the second party was in possession of the disputed land. When he passed his order neither party had filed written statements. The Magistrate then proceeded to take the evidence of one witness of the name of Ganga Charan Guha on behalf of the second party and decided that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace and that the second party was in possession of the disputed land. When he passed his order neither party had filed written statements. A written statement on behalf of the second party was filed after the ex parte order under sec 145, Cr. P. C, had been passed. It appears to us that the Magistrate's proceedings In this case are very irregular and they must have prejudiced the first party. This irregularity was so great as to amount to a want of jurisdiction and to justify our interference. No notice was ever served on the 1st party in accordance with the provisions of sub sec. 3 of sec 145, Cr. P. C. No notice was fixed on a conspicuous place in the locality though that may not be essential to the legality of the proceedings. No written statement was received from either party at the time when the order was passed and there had been no appearance on behalf of the first party and rib opportunity given to cite witnesses or to put in any documentary evidence. In these circumstances we do not think that the Magistrate was justified in passing the order which he did. We accordingly set it aside as It was passed without jurisdiction, and make the rule absolute. B. C. Rule made absolute.