ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bansdih, Ballia, in a case u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. On a report from the police that a dispute arising out of land between the parties was likely to result in a breach of the peace, a preliminary order was passed by the Magistrate on 24-3-1962, attaching the land and directing the parties to file written statements of their claims and lead evidence. 3. Accordingly, the parties appeared and led evidence both documentary and on affidavits in support of their respective claims. The learned Magistrate on an appraisal of evidence reached the conclusion that some of the opposite parties were in possession of the plots in dispute and, accordingly, ordered the respective plots to be released in their favour and directed the applicant and others not to interfere with their possession unless they had been evicted by a competent court of law. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the applicant came up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who, however, affirmed the findings of the Magistrate and dismissed the revision. Hence he has now come up in revision before this Court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant portions of the record. 6. It appears that one Mahabir was the fixed rate tenant of all the disputed plots and subsequently he acquired the status of Bhumidhar. Those plots were sold in an auction on 20th December, 1958, in execution of a money decree and the opposite party Shrikishun purchased them for a sum of more than Rs. 13,000/-. The sale was confirmed on 31st January, 1961, inspite of the objections having been raised to it by the judgment debtor and the applicant. On 21st February, 1961, possession was delivered to Shrikishun which was affirmed on 6th November, 1961 by the Sale Officer. The report by the police, on the basis of which proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure started, was made in March, 1962. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has raised two points in support of this revision. On 21st February, 1961, possession was delivered to Shrikishun which was affirmed on 6th November, 1961 by the Sale Officer. The report by the police, on the basis of which proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure started, was made in March, 1962. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has raised two points in support of this revision. His contention is that as the applicant had already been declared to be a sirdar of the plots claimed by him by means of a regular suit u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the learned Magistrate should have given due weight to that decree. The second contention raised by learned Counsel is that the learned Magistrate has decided the case only on the basis of the Dakhalnama in favour of the opposite party though Dakhalnama as such was not an evidence of the actual physical possession over the plots. Learned counsel argues that the learned Magistrate failed to give his decision on the question as to who was in actual physical possession of the plots in dispute within the meaning of Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not find any force in these contentions. 8. Shrikishun was not a party to the decree which was obtained by the applicant in respect of the plots u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and, therefore, it could not bind him. On the material placed before the courts below, it was open to them to hold that it was a collusive decree having been obtained by the applicant who was alleged to have been a Karinda of the judgment-debtor in order to defeat the creditors. The learned Magistrate has referred to the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their claims of possession over the plots. In view of the Dakhalnama in favour of Shrikishun in respect of these plots obtained by him from a competent court of law inspite of the objections of the applicant who was impleaded in those proceedings, the learned Magistrate has relied on the affidavits filed on behalf of Shrikishun in holding that it was he who was in possession of the plots. The learned Sessions Judge has concurred with that Ending. The learned Sessions Judge has concurred with that Ending. The concurrent findings of fact given by the courts below appear to be based on a reasonable appreciation of evidence and do not call for an interefernce. 9. Proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure are in the nature of summary proceedings which are taken for preventing breach of the peace arising out o. disputes relating to land. They do not decide the rights 01 the parties finally. Therefore, where the courts below have taken a reasonable view in the matter, it is not expedient to interiore with their findings in revision. 10. This revision has no force and is dismissed.