JUDGMENT 1. This Rule arises out of an unfortunate dispute between two landlords in consequence of which, in a proceeding under sec. 145, an order attaching the property has been passed under sec. 146, Cr. P. C., and a Receiver appointed. Unfortunately it appears that the Magistrate who appointed the Receiver has omitted to give any direction as to how the property should be managed and still more unfortunately the tenants on both sides appear to be at loggerheads as regards the grazing rights over the property, but one thing appears to be admitted that the Zamindar of the present accused gave them the grazing rights over this land, and that they objected to one Amjad Ali who was a leading tenant of the rival Zamindar ploughing up a portion of the land over which they allege they have grazing rights, under colour of a lease from the Receiver. It appears to us that the Receiver should not have granted the lease to Amjad Ali entitling him to cultivate the whole of this land without making proper provision for the grazing rights. The trying Magistrate assumes that he did make such provision, but it is clear from the judgment that he had been given no authority to make such provision and that he had not as a matter of fact determined what the grazing rights were, to what extent they required the land and to what amount of land Amjad Ali might be entitled for cultivating purposes. The result is, as is too frequently the case in this country, that the peasants left to themselves and finding their grazing rights interfered with fell out, but fortunately owing to the presence of the police on the spot no harm was done. But we think that it is not right that these cultivators should be convicted of criminal trespass when they were asserting a right which had never been declared against them which they bond fide believed they had, and for the same reason we think that they cannot be said to have formed an unlawful assembly, because they went and protested against the land being ploughed up. The Receiver should now receive proper instructions from the Magistrate with regard to the management of the property attached, and when such instructions have been given, this Court, as has always been held, would not interfere with such an order of management ; and if the orders are duly promulgated and the raiyats know what their rights are under the Receiver and then by show of force do anything contrary to the Receiver's authority, there would be ground for proceeding against them. But at present we think that there is no such ground and that it would be extremely unfortunate to allow this conviction to stand. 2. The conviction and sentence ate therefore set aside and the fine if paid will be refunded. The rule is made absolute.