JUDGMENT : Das, J. - The Petitioner and the opposite party are close relations. There was a previous proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure between them which ended in favour of the Petitioner-first-party on 31-7-1962 and he was found to be in possession. During the pendency of this proceeding the disputed property was kept in the Zimanama of P.W. 3. Under orders of the Court the police delivered possession of the said property to the Petitioner on 17-8-1962 and submitted a report to that effect on 18-8-1962. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that after the delivery of possession was effected to him, he remained in possession of the disputed property, but in spite of the order of the Magistrate in his favour in the previous proceeding u/s 145, the opposite party again threatened to dispossess him and there was further apprehension of the breach of peace. Accordingly on 17-11-1963 he made a petition (Ext. 3) for taking action u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure against the opposite party. 3. The opposite party was called upon to show cause why action u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure should not be taken against him, but it was his case that he was in possession of the disputed land all along. According to him, the settlement officer made enquiries in the mutation camp and found that Janak Dehury the father of the opposite party was in actual physical possession of the land and accordingly entries were made to that effect in the settlement records. 4. On enquiry the learned Magistrate found that there was no actual delivery of possession in favour of the Petitioner, first-party and that the opposite party was still found to be in physical possession in 1(f)(3) long after the alleged delivery of possession in 1963 long after the alleged delivery of possession on 17-8-1962. He further found that there was no apprehension of the breach of peace prior to 17-11-1963 when the application was filed by Petitioner. He therefore refused to take action u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure and discharged the opposite party u/s 119. It is against this order of discharge the present revision has been filed by the first party. 5. Mr. He therefore refused to take action u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure and discharged the opposite party u/s 119. It is against this order of discharge the present revision has been filed by the first party. 5. Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, raised the following contentions (i) That in view of the assertion of the opposite party in the court itself that he still continued to be in possession even after the order of the Magistrate u/s 146, there was every cause for breach of the peace and (ii) that the order of the Magistrate being that the Petitioner was to remain in possession untill evicted in due course of law, be cannot be evicted merely on the strength of the settlement entry said to have been made in favour of the opposite party. I think there is much force in these contentions. 6. From the nature of the dispute and the assertion of the opposite party that, he was still in possession, there was apparent cause for breach of the peace especially in view of the adverse order against the opposite party in the previous proceeding u/s 145. The unequivocal assertion of the opposite party to remain in possession is itself sufficient to show that he was determined to commit unlawful acts which were likely to result in breach of the peace. 7. In a case of this Court reported in State v. Rai singh Kishan I.L.R 1963 Cut. 771 it was held that once a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure has terminated in favour of the first party the second party's interference with his possession would amount to commission of an unlawful act and once that party says in open court that he is determined to continue in possession there is no other alternative but to bind him down u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure and also to take farther coercive if the proceeding u/s 107 does not prove very effective. A similar view was also expressed in a later decision of this Court reported in Banamali v. Bajra Nahak ILR 1964 Cutt 182. In that case there was a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure between the same parties and there was also civil litigation in which the first party eventually succeeded and possession to the suit-land was declared in his favour. In that case there was a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure between the same parties and there was also civil litigation in which the first party eventually succeeded and possession to the suit-land was declared in his favour. It was held that in a case of this kind, possession of the successful party in the civil litigations must be maintained and any attempt to interfere with his possession should be prevented by taking recourse to proceeding u/s 107 or u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure if it became necessary. 8. In the present case, the Petitioner was declared to be in possession of the disputed property, in a previous 145 proceeding between the parties, until evicted there from in due course of law and all disturbances in such possession by the opposite party were forbidden. After such an order was passed, the delivery of possession though ineffective, is of no consequence. 9. Mr. T.C. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the opposite party, contended that the settlement entry in favour of the opposite party, in effect, evicts the Petitioner from the disputed land within the meaning of Section 145(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, it is not necessary for the opposite party to approach the civil court for setting aside the order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure Think this contention is fallacious. It is well-settled that a settlement entry neither creates nor extinguishes any right. It is only a rebut table piece of evidence regarding possession of the person in whose name the land is recorded. It cannot have the effect of evicting a person from any property. In a case of identical nature reported in Mahanth Krishna Deyal Gir and Another Vs. Sheikh Nirmali and Another, Mullick J. while explaining the meaning of the expression due course of law appearing in Section 145(6) held that the phrase due course of law in Section 145(6) does not necessarily mean a decree of a civil court, but an order which evicts a party must either be an order of a civil court of a Court acting under statutory authority and an order of the settlement officer is not such an order. It is quite clear to my mind that the settlement officer has no statutory authority to evict the first party by his order nor has the settlement entry the effect of the decree of a Civil Court. In view of this legal position, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be held and is set aside. The opposite party is directed to execute the bond u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure for a sum of Rs. 500/- with one surety of the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond. The Revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed