JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference made to this Court by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, arises out of proceedings under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The facts are that, Rodha Singh, filed an application before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Deoband alleging that Ram Kala and two other persons, who are the applicants in this reference, had blocked his way to his Chak No. 45 which lay in plot No. 884 which belonged to the applicants Ram Kala and two other persons. According to Rodha Singh, Ram Kala and his companions, had obstructed his right of way to reach his Chak by digging a ditch and when he objected they threatened to beat him. He, therefore, made the application before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that there was an apprehension of breach of peace and that an inquiry may be made and that Ram Kala and his companions be restrained from obstructing his right of way which lay through a plot belonging to Ram Kala etc. in order to reach his Chak. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on receiving Rodha Singh's application, sent it to Tehsildar for inquiry and report. The Tehsildar visited the spot and looked into the village papers and reported that no passage was recorded over plot No. 884 in the settlement and Rodha Singh could claim only easmentary right in a civil court. After setting the Tehsildar's report the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for report from the Station Officer Nagal who made a similar report as that of the Tehsildar but added that there was an apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. Thereupon, on February 4, 1966 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoband, passed a preliminary order requiring the parties to appear before him and put in their written statements and such other evidence as they liked in support of their cases. Accordingly the applicants, Ram Kala and his companions, appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on February 22, 1966 and filed their written statements and affidavits of their witnesses. Rodha Singh also filed his written statement and affidavit of his witnesses. 3. According to Ram Kala and others there was no passage going to the Chak of Rodha Singh over plot No. 884 belonging to them and they stated that Rodha Singh, in fact, wanted to make forcibly a passage over their plot. Rodha Singh also filed his written statement and affidavit of his witnesses. 3. According to Ram Kala and others there was no passage going to the Chak of Rodha Singh over plot No. 884 belonging to them and they stated that Rodha Singh, in fact, wanted to make forcibly a passage over their plot. Rodha Singh and his witnesses, on the other hand, stated that Rodha Singh had a passage over the plot of Ram Kala Singh to go to his Chak No. 45. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after considering the affidavits filed by the parties and also the extracts of village records, found that Rodha Singh had a right to use the plot No. 884 belonging to Ram Kala and his companions and accordingly on, May 30, 1966, passed an order restraining Ram Kala and others from obstructing Rodha singh from using the passage over plot no. 884 in order to go to his Chak No. 45. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ram Kala and others preferred a revision which was heard by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, who, by his order dated April 17, 1967, has made the present reference. 5. Service of this reference has been effected on Rodha Singh but he is not represented. Ram Kala and his two companions are represented by Sri T. Rathore and the State is represented by its brief holder Sri K.C. Dhulis. 6. Sri T. Rathore contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in arriving at its decision after perusing the affidavits of the parties and the written statements was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate has to be set aside. 7. Section 147 Criminal Procedure Code deals with disputes concerning rights of use of immoveable property etc. Under sub-section (1) of Section 47 the Magistrate, on being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace exists, regarding any right of user of any land, may make an order in writing requiring the parties concerned to attend and to put in written statements of their respective claims and shall thereafter inquire into the matter in the manner prescribed. Sub-Section (1-A) of Section 147 requires that the Magistrate shall then peruse the written statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary and, if possible, decide whether such right exists and the provisions of Section 145 shall, as far as may be, be applicable in the case of such inquiry. 8. A perusal of Section 145 clearly shows that the Magistrate cannot confine his order purely an affidavits filed by the parties and has to inquire into the matter and has to consider and call upon the parties to produce all evidence that they might like to produce. The learned Magistrate could not pass his order on perusing the written statements of the parties and on perusing the affidavits filed on their behalf only. The record of the court of the learned Magistrate shows that the parties filed only their written statements and affidavits on February 22, 1966 and then asked for time to produce further evidence and for that purpose the learned Magistrate adjourned the case twice but ultimately the learned Magistrate without giving any reason and without recording the statements of the parties that they would not produce any further evidence in the matter fixed the case for arguments and after hearing the parties delivered judgment on May 30, 1966 directing the applicants Ram Kala and others not to interfere with the right of way of Rodha Singh to pass over plot No. 884 in order to reach his Chak. The learned Magistrate clearly did not follow the procedure prescribed in Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, and the order passed by him is clearly illegal as he decided the matter only on affidavits of the parties. 9. The learned Magistrate clearly did not follow the procedure prescribed in Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, and the order passed by him is clearly illegal as he decided the matter only on affidavits of the parties. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the orders passed by the Courts below and after going through the record I accept this reference and set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated May 30, 1966 and send back the case to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate with the direction that he shall hold a fresh inquiry according to the provisions of Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code and dispose of the application of Rodha Singh in accordance with law after recording the finding whether he has a right of way to his Chak over plot No. 884 belonging to Ram Kala and others and whether that right was exercised within three months before the holding of the inquiry.