DAVE, J.—This reference comes on the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated the 31st October, 1961. It relates to a peculiar case of its own kind, because the parties arrayed against each other are the Gram Panchayat Godawas and the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana. 2. On the 19th of April, 1961, the Station House Officer, Nim-ka-Thana presented a report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana for taking proceedings under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. against the said parties. The Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana was named as Party No. 1 and the Gram Panchayat Godawas was named as Party No. 2. It was stated in the said report that both the parties were holding cattle fairs at a place called Jodla Johra at Neem-ka-Thana, that since both the parties wanted to hold fairs on the same dates, there was a likelihood of the breach of peace, that a separate report to bind down both the parties for keeping peace was already made under sec. 107 Cr. P. C. and that another proceeding under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. should also be taken against them. This report was forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the Magistrate First Class, Nim-ka-Thana, on 20.4.61. On 21.4.61, the said Magistrate drew up a preliminary order and directed both the parties to put in their written statements. At the same time, he passed an order for the attachment of the property in dispute and appointed the Tehsildar Neem-ka-Thana, as receiver and directed him to take into his possession the papers relating to the sale of the cattle. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the Gram Panchayat presented a revision application which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. The learned Judge has reported that the dispute between the parties did not relate to a particular piece of land, that both of them had their separate Mela, camps and the real controversy between them was about attracting the customers to their respective camps. In his opinion, the learned Magistrate was not correct in proceeding under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and the proper thing for him was to take action under sec. 147 Cr.P.C. He has recommended that the Magistrate should be directed to convert the proceedings into one under sec. 147 Cr. P. C. and to return the movables attached by him. 4. Nobody has appeared in this Court on behalf of the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana. 5. 145 Cr.P.C. and the proper thing for him was to take action under sec. 147 Cr.P.C. He has recommended that the Magistrate should be directed to convert the proceedings into one under sec. 147 Cr. P. C. and to return the movables attached by him. 4. Nobody has appeared in this Court on behalf of the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana. 5. Learned [counsel for the Gram Panchayat Godawas has urged that the land called Jodla Johra was in fact a piece of grass-land which was included in the Parcha Chakbandi at No. 127 and 218 of Swami Motidas, that Swami Motidas had permitted the Gram Panchayat to hold the fair on this land as usual, that the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana, ought not to have held any fair on that land, and that in any case the members of the Panchayat had made it clear to the Magistrate that there was no apprehension of breach of peace on their part and therefore the Magistrate ought not to have proceeded under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. He had no authority to take into his possession the receipts and the cash box belonging to the Gram Panchayat. It is further urged by him that no order of this Court for conversion of the proceedings is any more necessary, because the fair ended in April, 1961. 6. From the perusal of the record I find that when the police report was made for proceedings under sec. 145 Cr.P.C, an application was presented on behalf of the Gram Panchayat that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. Inspite of this plea, the Magistrate did not make it clear in his preliminary order how he apprehended breach of peace between the Gram Panchayat, Godawas, and the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana. Both of them were local bodies being different arms of the same Government, and they could not possibly commit breach of peace. ! If it was apprehended that any member or particular members of the Municipal Board or if any member or particular members of the Gram Panchayat were to commit breach of peace, the proper cause should have been to bind them down for keeping peace. The proceedings under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. were obviously ill-conceived. The legislature has armed the Magistrate with powers under sec. The proceedings under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. were obviously ill-conceived. The legislature has armed the Magistrate with powers under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. to proceed when there is an apprehension of breach of peace about the possession of a certain immovable property between private parties. This provision is not meant for deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction between two different local bodies. Moreover, when an application was presented before the Magistrate on behalf of the Gram Panchayat that there was no apprehension of breach of peace, there was all the more reason for the Magistrate not to proceed under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. 7. I agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the Magistrate had committed an error in proceeding under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. There was no sense in making an order of attachment when the fair was already on. Moreover, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach any movable property under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. It was absolutely wrong on his part to order the Tehsildar to seize the papers and cash-book of the Gram Panchayat or of the Municipal Board. 8. At the same time, I do not agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the proceeding should be ordered to be converted under sec. 147 Cr. P. C. That section contemplates disputes likely to cause a breach of the peace regarding any right of user of any land or water within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. There was no dispute between the two local bodies about their right to use land of the other party. At any rate, the fair has already ended as pointed out by learned counsel for party No. 2 and therefore it is unnecessary to continue any proceedings whatsoever. 9. The reference is therefore partly allowed. The order passed by the Magistrate on 21.4.61 is set aside. He should return the movable properties attached by him from the possession of the two parties immediately to their respective possession.