JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - In a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure initiated on the report of the Police, a preliminary order was passed on 10-12-1968 and the properties were also attached. Sometime before the initiation of the proceedings it appears, the first party had filed an application u/s 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act in the Revenue Court for determination that he is a tenant under the landlord. That application was dismissed on 14-801968 by the Revenue Court and it is said that an appeal against the order filed by the 1st party is pending. It also further transpires that during the pendency of the O.L.R. Case in the trial Court, an application was made by the first party for appointment of receiver. But that application was rejected. In view of the facts stated above, the second party in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, requested the Magistrate to drop the proceedings which by the impugned order he refused to do. Hence this revision by Second Party. 2. It is contended by Mr. Murty appearing for the Petitioner that before the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated in the Criminal Court, the first party had approached the Revenue Court for necessary relief regarding declaration of his rights as a tenant and he also made an application to the Court for appointment of a receiver, a relief, which that Court was competent to grant. It is argued that since the Revenue Court having the jurisdiction to grant the relief had after proper exercise thereof refused to appoint a receiver, that circumstances should be sufficient to warrant dropping of the proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. I am unable to accept this contention. The main purpose of a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent breach of peace. That Court is not concerned about the rights of parties except to the extent they are necessary to pass appropriate orders as is warranted by the circumstances of the case. The relief that was prayed for in the Revenue Court in the proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act was a declaration that the first party was a tenant in respect of the disputed land. The relief that was prayed for in the Revenue Court in the proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act was a declaration that the first party was a tenant in respect of the disputed land. Notwithstanding that the relief might not have been granted to him and, even assuming for a moment that the order passed by the Revenue Court has become final (in this case it has not become final due to the pendency of the appeal), still that would not stand on the way of the first party being actually in possession of the land, although the possession may be unauthorised or even unlawful. What is necessary to be considered in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is the fact of actual possession and not whether the possession is unauthorised or unlawful. It, therefore, follows that merely because the O.L.R. court has refused to recognise that the first party is a tenant in respect of the disputed land, it does not automatically follow therefrom that either the first party is not in possession of the land or that the apprehension of breach of peace which existed by the date the preliminary order was passed had ceased to exist. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in refusing to drop the proceedings. 4. The revision application is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed