JUDGMENT Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. - This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra, for setting aside the impugned order dated 18th June, 1970 passed by the magistrate in proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. 2. Smt. Bhagwati moved an application before the magistrate for initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of plot no. 1101/1. After obtaining the police report the magistrate felt satisfied of the existence of apprehension of breach of peace on account of dispute between the parties over the land and, therefore, passed a preliminary order on 12th March, 1970. The contesting parties put in their written statements and affidavits and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. 3. The magistrate held that the disputed land was the joint tenancy of the contesting parties and that Smt. Bhagwati was in actual possession of half of the area in the disputed plot and accordingly ordered the release of the dispute plot with the direction that Smt. Bhagati would be put in possession to the extent of half of the area of the disputed plot. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant went up in revision and the learned Sessions judge has recommended for the setting aside of the order on the ground that the magistrate having held that the disputed land was under the joint tenancy of the parties and, therefore, he could not proceed to take action under section 145 Cr.P.C. and the order being illegal must be set aside. 5. Sri Prakash Chand learned counsel, has appeared in support of the reference. Neither the opposite party Smt. Bhagwati nor any counsel on her behalf has appeared to oppose the reference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S. N. M. Tripathi the learned counsel for the State. The magistrate has no explanation to offer. 7. The view of the learned Sessions judge that S. 145 Cr. P.C. is inappliable in the case of joint land is not correct. In the case Ram Shankar Tewari v. State, 1970 ALJ 563 it has been held by this Court that proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. can be started in respect of joint land when one of the co-sharers is in actual possession and a dispute with regard to possession is likely to cause a breach of the peace between the co-sharers. 8. 8. A perusal of the magistrate's order shows that although he had attached the whole of the plot No. 1101 /1 but on his finding that the said plot was in the joint tenancy of the parties, the magistrate directed that only half of the area of the disputed attached plot with the crops standing thereon should be released in favour of Smt. Bhagwati. He did not specify the particular area of the disputed plot which was to be released in favour of Smt. Bhagwati. The half area of the disputed plot which the magistrate released in favour of Smt. Bhagwati does not appear to be demarcated on the spot and, therefore, the impugned order of the magistrate is incapable of being implemented. The magistrate has also not discussed the affidavits, filed by the parties in support of their respective claims. For these reasons the impugned order of the magistrate has to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of the magistrate dated 18th June, 1970 and remand the case with the direction that the magistrate shall examine and scruitinise the evidence on record and discuss it in his judgement for arriving at his conclusions. Since the case is being remanded to the court below, the parties will be given the option to adduce such further documentary evidence as they may deem proper in support of their claim of possession and thereafter the case will be disposed of according to law. The case on remand will be dealt with by a magistrate other than the magistrate whose order has been set aside. 10. The reference is accepted.