JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - This is an application in revision by one Sahib Khan and arises out of proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It appears that Sahib Khan, was the tenant of certain plots and he was ejected from them u/s 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. After his ejectment the plots in dispute were let out to Aslam Khan and some other persons. When Act X of 1947 came into force, an application was made u/s 27 of the aforesaid Act to the revenue court by Sahib Khan for his reinstatement over the plots from which he had been ejected. Aslam Khan and others filed an objection. Their main contention was that they could be ejected only by means of a suit u/s 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. This objection was disallowed and was confirmed in appeal. It was decided that Aslam Khan and others were to deliver possession of the disputed plots to Sahib Khan after the expiry of three years. They did not deliver possession with the result that Sahib Khan made an application in the revenue court for delivery of possession and, as appears from the dakhalnama dated the 28th September, 1951, possession was delivered to him. After some time Sahib Khan made an application u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure that he was in possession of the disputed plots but Aslam Khan and others wanted to disturb his possession and consequently there was an apprehension of the breach of peace. The plots in dispute were attached on the police report which was obtained by the learned magistrate after the Applicant on u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure He directed both the parties to file their written statements and produce their evidence in support of their respective possession. As required both the parties filed their written statements and produced evidence in support of their possession. Sahib Khan examined himself and one other witness, namely, Pir Mohd. and Aslam Khan produced three witnesses besides himself. Sahib Khan also filed the dakhalnama dated the 28th September, 1951, in order to support his possession. The learned magistrate does not seem to have taken any pains to consider the evidence which was produced before him. Sahib Khan examined himself and one other witness, namely, Pir Mohd. and Aslam Khan produced three witnesses besides himself. Sahib Khan also filed the dakhalnama dated the 28th September, 1951, in order to support his possession. The learned magistrate does not seem to have taken any pains to consider the evidence which was produced before him. He shirked his responsibility and probably thought it best to take shelter under the provisions of Section 146, Code of Criminal Procedure The relevant portion of his judgment in this connection runs thus: The opposite-party examined Aslam Khan, Ram Bahadur, Pir Mohd. and Mankhan, all of whom supported Aslam Khan. From a perusal of evidence on record and the fact that a revenue suit on the question of possession between the parties concerning the same land is pending before the Hon'ble Board, I feel that the case is not one in which I am in a position to arrive at a conclusion regarding the possession of either of the parties on the land in suit. I do not think any of the parties has given sufficient evidence to establish its possession over the land in suit within two months preceding the date of filing the application. There is apprehension of breach of peace over the land in suit and I am perfectly satisfied if the attachment order is removed, the parties shall fall out thereby causing breach of peace in that locality. I therefore u/s 146 Code of Criminal Procedure order that the property shall remain attached till a competent court decides the issue of possession and so long as there is apprehension of breach of peace. 3. I do not think that this is a correct approach by the learned magistrate. Sub-Section 4 of Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly provides that: the Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits of the claims of any such parties who had a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the order before mentioned in such possession of the said subject. 4. 4. It will appear from a perusal of the above Sub-section that the magistrate has to apply his mind in order to decide the question of possession upon the basis of the evidence produced before him and it is not sufficient for him to say that he has not been able to arrive at any finding regarding possession without taking into consideration and without analysing the evidence produced before him. 5. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned magistrate has not complied with the provisions of Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and this fact by itself is sufficient to set aside his order passed u/s 146 Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. It has, however, been contended on behalf of the applicant that the rights of the parties had already been determined by the competent revenue court shortly before the application u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure was made, and on that fact should have been taken into consideration by the learned magistrate in deciding as to which of the parties was in possession and in whose favour the attachment should be released. There is no doubt that the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure are summary proceedings and it is only in those cases where the question of possession is disputed between the parties and there is an apprehension of breach of peace and where the rights of the parties have not already been determined in respect of the disputed land, that remedy is provided under this section. Where, however, the rights of the parties in respect of the disputed land have already been determined by a competent court, it is very doubtful if Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure could be applicable to such cases. In my opinion, where such rights have been determined, it is the duty of the criminal courts to enforce it and if any person wrongfully deprives a person of such right and possession, the rights of the rightful person should be recognised and enforced. In this connection reference may be made to some of the cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the applicant. 7. The first case is of Makhanlal v. Mangal and Ors. 1942 A.W.R. (H.C.) 361. In this connection reference may be made to some of the cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the applicant. 7. The first case is of Makhanlal v. Mangal and Ors. 1942 A.W.R. (H.C.) 361. It was held in this case that-- when the rights of parties had been determined by a competent civil court, the dispute is at an end and it was the duty of the magistrate in proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain the rights of the successful party and not to allow the defeated party to invoke the aid of the magistrate and the police to neutralise the effect of the decree of the competent civil court. 8. The next case is of Chinnamma Naicken and Others Vs. Rama Naicken and Others, AIR 1944 Mad 472 . It was held in this case that: an order u/s 146 Code of Criminal Procedure could be passed only in the absence of an order of a competent court, but where such an order did not exist which was binding on the parties to the proceedings, the question whether possession was actually delivered to the successful party, in pursuance of the order, was not material. In this case there was a dispute about possession between the two parties who were also parties to a Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1913. Both the parties were claiming possession over the property in dispute and this gave rise to the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. The Petitioners contended that they had obtained delivery of possession of the property in execution of a decree of the subordinate judge of Trichnopoly and that consequently the right to obtain delivery of possession of properties having been found by a competent court, the Joint Magistrate was not justified in passing an order u/s 146 Code of Criminal Procedure This contention was upheld and the order u/s 146 Code of Criminal Procedure was set aside and the Petitioner's claim to possession of the disputed property was accepted. Mrs. Mrs. V.E. Argles v. Chhail Bihari 1949 A.W.R. (H.C.) 409, it was held by Bind Basni Prasad, J. that when the rights of the parties to a case u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure had been recently determined by the competent court, the dispute was at an end and it was the duty of the magistrate in a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain the rights of the successful party and not to allow the defeated party to invoke the aid of the magistrate and the police to neutralise the effect of the decree of a competent court. It was also held in this case that the fact that the operation of the decree passed by the revenue court had been stayed by the High Court pending appeal by an interim order did not nullify that decree but it only meant that the execution of that decree could not be taken out pending the decision of the appeal and that the decree subsisted and should be treated as valid until it had been set aside or varied. 10. In Sheikh Masihuddin v. The State 1952 A.L.J. 758 it was held by Waliullah, J. that it was the duty of the magistrate holding proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain the rights of the parties when such rights had been declared by a competent court within a time not remote from taking proceedings under the section and where the possession had been delivered to the applicants in pursuance of a decree for ejectment recently passed by the revenue court in a case u/s 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, the applicant should be held to be in possession and the magistrate could not treat the proceedings for delivery of possession in pursuance of the decree for ejectment to be purely a formal proceeding divorced altogether from the factum of actual possession. 11. The last case on the point is of Lala Ajodhia Nath v. Ganga Prasad and Ors. 1953 A.W.R. (H.C.) 332. 11. The last case on the point is of Lala Ajodhia Nath v. Ganga Prasad and Ors. 1953 A.W.R. (H.C.) 332. It was held in this case that-- in proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure, the court should first make every attempt to come to a conclusion on the merits of the case with a view to ascertain which of the contesting parties was actually in possession and it Was only when he found the evidence equally balanced, and was unable to make up his mind, that he was absolved of the responsibility of coming to a definite conclusion in the matter. 12. It was further held that there should be some reasons in the order of the magistrate no indicate the grounds as to why he found it impossible to come to any definite conclusion in the matter, that the order should contain sufficient material to indicate to the revisional court that the magistrate had applied its mind to the case and had made a genuine attempt to give a decision in the matter and, in spite of it, had found itself unable to come to any definite conclusion in favour of either party, and hence it was taking action u/s 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. On behalf of the opposite-parties reliance was placed on Sheonarayan Singh and Others Vs. Bharath Singh and Others, AIR 1954 Patna 182 . It was held in this case that what was required to be determined by a magistrate in a case u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure was the actual physical possession of the parties concerned on the date of the preliminary order and not the right to such possession. It, however, appears from this decision also that where one of the parties had obtained delivery of possession through a court that has to be taken into consideration in determining the question of possession. It, however, appears from this decision also that where one of the parties had obtained delivery of possession through a court that has to be taken into consideration in determining the question of possession. The relevant portion of the judgment in this connection is as follows-- If the Judgment-debtor contend that the peon's report is not correct and there was no dakhaldehani on the spot then certainly that is a question which has to be investigated and it is within the province of the magistrate to investigate this question in the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure It is another thing that, after the delivery of possession is proved, the magistrate has to respect the delivery of possession but so long as the delivery of possession is not proved, it is absolutely within the competence of the magistrate to draw up a proceeding u/s 145 in the event of an apprehension of the breach of peace and to investigate whether a dakhaldehani was actually effected on the spot or not. 14. This decision, however, only lays down that the magistrate in a case u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has to decide the actual physical possession of the parties concerned on the relevant date and is not concerned with the rights which the parties may have in respect of the disputed property. It does not lay down as to what is to happen where the rights of the parties in respect of the disputed property have already been decided shortly before the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and whether such rights are to be given effect to in such proceedings. The other decisions relied on also do. not say anything on this point. 15. In view of the decision cited above, it appears to me that where the rights of the parties in respect of the disputed land have been decided by a competent court those rights should be given effect to in proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure In this case the applicant Sahib Khan was held entitled to recover possession of the disputed property in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of Act X of 1947 and in pursuance of the order passed by the revenue court he was given delivery of possession over this property. 16. 16. It was contended on behalf of the opposite-parties that there was no final determination of the rights of the parties as a revision was pending in the Board of Revenue against the appellate order passed u/s 27 of Act X of 1947. The question which arises for determination is whether the appellate order conclusively determined the rights of the parties and had become final. In this Connection reference may be made to Section 27 Sub-clause 6 of the aforesaid Act, which clearly provides that an appeal against an order passed under this section shall lie to the Collector whose appellate order shall be final. 17. In view of this clear provision I do not see any reason why the appellate order of the Collector should not be treated as final and why it should not be considered as having determined the rights of the parties. Moreover, even if a revision is pending in the Board against such an order that will not mean that the rights of the parties have not been determined by a competent court. I do not think that the fights of the parties u/s 27 of the aforesaid Act will, in any way, be affected simply because a revision is pending against the appellate order of the Collector. 18. In the circumstances, I am of opinion that this revision should be allowed and the order of the court below should be set aside. I order accordingly. The attachment shall be released in favour of the applicant.