JUDGMENT Roy, J. - On the 28th of May, 1951, Data Ram, Musaddi, Pitambar, Naqil and Chhotan submitted an application in the court of S.D.M. Deoband alleging that three plots of land bearing Nos. 1, 72 and 73 pertaining to khewat No. 23, situate at mauza Fatehullahpur, which was the common land of the village at one time, had been allotted to the applicants by the District Planning Officer for cultivation. They contended that the area of these plots was 74 bighas and 13 biswas, out of which 24 bighas and 5 biswas had been brought by them under cultivation. They further contended that the opposite party Hari Singh, Lakhpat, Baru, Jaimal, Dharam Singh, Ram Sarup, Amar Singh, Barkat, Mamraj and Rajpal, who had their land adjacent to this land, were trying to interfere with the possession of the applicants and there was, therefore, a likelihood of a breach of peace. It was alleged that the opposite-parties had made plans to take possession over this land. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the Station Officer of police station Rampur. He made a report on the 31st of May, 1951, saying that there was a likelihood of breach of peace, and suggesting that attachment of the property should be made. 2. On the 2nd of June, 1951, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued an order for attachment of the property. The property was really attached on the 3rd of June, 1951. On the 6th of June, 1951, Bulla made an application to the S.D.M to the effect that in the teeth of the attachment the opposite-party had come on the land and had sown paddy over the field on the 5th of June, 1951. Another report was called for from the Station Officer and he made a report on the 9th of June, 1951, supporting the allegations of Bulla. 3. Thereafter the application u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was transferred to another Magistrate who, after considering the written statements that had been filed by the parties u/s 145 and after hearing the evidence that had been produced by them, came to the conclusion that the property was not sufficiently identifiable in the sense that there was no daulbandi or boundary marks. He further held that the evidence on record made it obvious that the contending parties were in joint possession and, as such, no order could be made u/s 145, Cr.P.C. He further held that since this portion of the joint land had been cultivated by the opposite-party and the crop that was attached had been sown by the opposite-party over this land, the value of the crop which was in deposit in court as also the attached land should be released in favour of the opposite party. As against that order an application in revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge of Sabaranpur, who rejected it on the 23rd of October, 1952. 4. The aggrieved party then filed the present petition in revision in this Court, and it has been contended on their behalf that when the proceedings were dropped by the learned Magistrate, the land and the sale proceeds of the crop in the custody of the Magistrate should have been restored to the party from whose possession they were taken, and that at any rate, the learned Magistrate should have kept them in custody until the parties claiming them had established their right in a court of law. Learned Counsel for the applicants has strenuously contended that the record unmistakably proved that the land in question was attached from the possession of the applicants and he has, therefore, argued that the land together with the crop or the value thereof should have been released from attachment in favour of the applicants. I have been taken through the evidence on the record. The witnesses, who were produced on behalf of the applicants, themselves proved that possession over the land was with the opposite party at the date of attachment. Genda stated that that part of the banjar land which lay towards the north had been brought under cultivation by Hari Singh opposite party. Kallu Ram witness, on the other hand, stated that the disputed piece of land, which is towards the north, had been given to the applicants. The evidence of these two witnesses did not leave the identity of the property into doubt. And if the identity was established, the statement of Genda clearly indicated that it was in the possession of Hari Singh opposite party and had been brought by him under cultivation. 5. The evidence of these two witnesses did not leave the identity of the property into doubt. And if the identity was established, the statement of Genda clearly indicated that it was in the possession of Hari Singh opposite party and had been brought by him under cultivation. 5. Once a Magistrate is satisfied as to the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace and he passes an order u/s 145, Sub-clause (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the contending parties including the complainant u/s 145 are in the position of opposite parties. When proceedings are dropped u/s 145, Sub-Clause (5) on the ground that there never existed a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace, the Magistrate's jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 145 altogether ends, and as such he can only pass an incidental order relating to the attached property. If he enters into a minute examination as to the claims of the respective parties regarding the fact of actual possession on the date of the initial order he will be doing precisely what he is not empowered to do. Therefore, proceedings having been dropped, there is no question of his taking any evidence as to who was in possession on the date of the preliminary order. But if the order u/s 145, Sub-clause (5) is passed after evidence has been taken and if the evidence of the applicants u/s 145, Cr.P.C. shows that the property was attached from the possession of the opposite party, the Magistrate must be deemed to have inherent jurisdiction to restore possession of the property to that party. By doing so he will be restoring the status quo ante. This is what the learned Magistrate has precisely done in the present case. 6. Upon the state of the record I do not think it is open to the applicants to contend that the attachment was made from their possession and that the land and crop in question or the money value thereof should have been returned to them. Nor is it open to them to contend that the learned Magistrate should have kept the land and the crop or the money value thereof under attachment unless and until the matter was decided by a civil court. In my opinion there is no force in this revision application which is rejected.