JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - This is an application u/s 561(A), Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of the order dated 16-6-1956, passed by Sri B. Naithani, Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Bharthana in a case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The dispute in this case relates to seven plots in village Bijoli in the district of Allahabad. There are about 150 mango, Jamun and other kind of trees in these plots. These plots were recorded as Banjar in the revenue papers. After the abolition of zamindari the applicants who were ex-zamindar in that village made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bnarthana for the correction of the entries in the revenue papers relating to these plots. They claimed that these plots were their groves and they had been in possession of it as grove-holders and that they might be recorded in the revenue papers as Bhumidars. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the application and directed that the aforesaid plots should be recorded as groves. This order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside by the Collector though there was no appeal before him against the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The applicants then filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the Addl. Commissioner who heard the appeal made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order of the Collector on the ground that it was without jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Collector and also the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed that the entries in the revenue papers shall be corrected according to the decision of the civil court. It appears that the opposite party, viz. the President, District Board Etawal had filed a civil suit in respect of the disputed land. He had claimed that the entries in the revenue papers with regard to this land were correct and as it was Banjar before the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force it vested in Gaon Sabha and they had become owners of the land. An application for an interim injunction restraining the present applicants from interfering with their possession was made before the learned Civil Judge, The learned Civil Judge per his order dated 2-6-1954 found that the disputed land was grove and the applicants were in possession of it and they had been holding Mela on it. An application for an interim injunction restraining the present applicants from interfering with their possession was made before the learned Civil Judge, The learned Civil Judge per his order dated 2-6-1954 found that the disputed land was grove and the applicants were in possession of it and they had been holding Mela on it. He, therefore, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Against this order the opposite parties went up in appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge per his order dated 9-4-1956 dismissed the appeal and maintained the decision of the learned Civil Judge. Thereafter the opposite parties made an application for the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit. The application was rejected. The suit had been filed on a deficit court fee and the opposite parties did not make good the deficiency though they were allowed time for the same. The plaint was, therefore, rejected. Thereafter the present application was made by the opposite parties u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure on 9-6-1956. It was alleged that they were in possession of the disputed land and that there was a dispute between them and the applicants and on account of it there was an apprehension of breach of peace. The learned magistrate on this application called for a report from the police. The police submitted its report on 13-6-1956 and it was to the effect that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and that the opposite parties had made the application as a result of party feeling between them on one side and the present applicant on the other. It was also mentioned in this report that the Mela which was being held on the disputed land had passed off peacefully and was about to end. Another report was submitted by the same police officer on 14-6-1956. This report is as follows: Submitted mela passed as peacefully, separate report is attached. 3. The separate report to which a mention was made in this report runs as follows: There is long standing dispute between the District Board and Sri Shyam Kishore Tandon. Applications from both the sides are very often received. The disputed lands if attached, there remains no apprehension of breach of peace. I would submit that orders for the attachment may kindly be issued because cattle market will be held in Bijauli twice a week. 4. Applications from both the sides are very often received. The disputed lands if attached, there remains no apprehension of breach of peace. I would submit that orders for the attachment may kindly be issued because cattle market will be held in Bijauli twice a week. 4. It was on the basis of this latter report made on 14-6-1956 that the learned Magistrate on 16-6-1956, passed the order in question which is sought to be quashed in this proceeding. It may be mentioned here that the preliminary order which was passed by the learned. Magistrate was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure as amended because according to this amended provision the learned Magistrate was required to ask the parties concerned to put in such documents or to adduce in affidavit the evidence of such persons as were likely to depose in support of their respective claims. After passing the aforesaid preliminary order the learned Magistrate submitted a report to the Collector on 20-6-56 in which he made a request that the case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and also the case for the correction of papers might be transferred to some other court for disposal. The relevant portions of the report submitted by the learned Magistrate on 20-6-1956 is as follows: There has never been any trouble over holding cattle fair and markets by the intermediary during the pendency of the civil suit till 4-6-1956. The question is whether after the orders of the Civil Judge and the District Judge in Suit No. 33 of 1954, it would be just and proper to stop intermediary from holding cattle fair and market. It is difficult to ignore the effect of the orders of the civil courts dated 2-6-1954 and 9-4-1955 passed by Civil Judge and District Judge respectively on the ground that ultimately that plaint was rejected for non-payment of court fees. I have, however, taken action u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and have attached the plots in dispute. In disagreeing with D.G.C.'s views I have already formed my opinion in the matter and have also expressed it. I request that the case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and that of correction of papers be transferred to some other court for disposal. 5. In disagreeing with D.G.C.'s views I have already formed my opinion in the matter and have also expressed it. I request that the case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and that of correction of papers be transferred to some other court for disposal. 5. It appears to me from a perusal of the above passage: in the report of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate that he had passed the preliminary order not on judicial considerations and independent judgment of his own but on certain extraneous consideration and under some pressure. It is not known what opinion had been expressed by him in his disagreement with the views of District Government counsel. It appears to me that he was rather reluctant to pass the preliminary order on 16.6.1956 but he did not probably because the order of the Collector in the correction of papers case was against the applicant and in favour of the opposite parties. It is true that the Collector who passed that order was not the Collector at the time Sri Naithani passed the preliminary order but he seems to have been influenced by the fact that there was such an order of the District Magistrate and probably he had not the courage to ignore that order and decide the case otherwise. It appears that for this reason he did not want to try the case and made the request to the District Magistrate that it might be sent to some other court. 6. In view of the history of the case which has already been given above, it appears to me that the application made on behalf of the opposite parties was an abuse of the process of the court. They had filed a suit before the Civil Judge in respect of these very plots against the present applicants but they did not pay necessary court fees with the result that the plaint was rejected. It may be that they did not think it worthwhile to pay the court fees because they were unsuccessful in getting an ad interm injunction during the pendency of the suit. It appears that when the opp. parties found that they had not been successful through the Civil court they wanted to take short cut and made the application u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that when the opp. parties found that they had not been successful through the Civil court they wanted to take short cut and made the application u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is rather curious when the Sub-Inspector in his report dated 13-6-1956 had clearly said that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and the Mela had passed off peacefully and he made somewhat similar report next day but later on added that it would be better if the disputed land was attached. Even in subsequent report of the 14-6-1956 it was not clearly stated that there was any apprehension of breach of peace. There could be possibly no apprehension of breach of peace after the Mela had already come to an end. It appears to me that the subsequent report of the 14-6-1956 was maneuvered for the purpose of obtaining preliminary order from the learned Magistrate. 7. I do not wish to express any opinion with regard to the possession over the land in dispute. It is, however, not denied by the opposite parties that there are about 150 trees in the disputed land. The applicants clearly alleged this fact in their affidavit and there is no denial of it in the counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties. In the circumstances it must be accepted that there are a very large number of trees in the disputed land. The opposite parties, however, do not claim the trees as their own. These trees are said to be very old. In the civil suit the learned Civil judge found while disposing of the application for interim injunction that these trees were in possession of the applicants and that they had been holding Mela on this land. 8. In my opinion the application made by the opposite parties is clearly an abuse of the process of the court and order of the learned Magistrate cannot be maintained in view of the circumstances stated above. This application is, therefore, allowed and order of the learned Magistrate dated 16-6-1956, as also proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure are quashed.