JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - Both these revisions were taken up together for bearing, as proposed by the counsel appearing for both the parties; one set of argument was advanced in both the revisions; so both these cases are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Petitioners in both the revisions are brothers. Two proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, (Misc. Case No. 296/77 and Misc. Case No. 297/77) were initiated by the respective opposite parties against the respective Petitioners in these revisions, and both these proceedings were dropped by the Executive Magistrate, Puri on 12-7-1977 by two similar orders on the finding that we petitions filed by the first party members (opp. parties in these revisions) before the O.L.R. Court under Sections 36-A and 15(1)(d) of the O.L.R. Act had been dismissed and that there was no apprehension of breach of the peace between the parties in connection with the land in question. Against the said orders of the Magistrate, the first party members, the opposite parties herein, preferred two revisions before the Sessions Judge, Puri, and the Addl. Sessions Judge. Puri has allowed these two revisions by holding that merely because the first party members did not succeed in the said O.L.R. proceedings, the 145 proceedings initiated by them could not be dropped, and that on the facts Appellant on the face of the records there was apprehension of breach of the peace between the parties concerning the disputed lands. He accordingly restored the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law. The second party members in the two 145 proceedings have preferred these two revisions against the said orders of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. Mr. Rath, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contends that in view of the decision in the above-mentioned O.L.R. proceedings, the direction of the Addl. Sessions Judge to to dispose of on merits the two proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal, and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the O.L.R. proceedings initiated by the opposite parties herein were under Sections 36-A and 15(1)(d) of the a L.R. Act. Sessions Judge to to dispose of on merits the two proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal, and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the O.L.R. proceedings initiated by the opposite parties herein were under Sections 36-A and 15(1)(d) of the a L.R. Act. A proceeding u/s 36-A is for declaration that the whole of the land in cultivation of the tenant is non-resumable, and for determination of the fair and equitable rent and the compensation payable by the tenant in respect of the said land. Section 15(1)(d) deals with the question of the existence of the relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. Moreover, Mr. Rath is not able to show that in the said proceedings a firm and convincing finding of possession was recorded against the 1st, party and in favour of the 2nd party. That being so, the mere failure of the 1st, party to obtain orders in their favour in such proceedings would not disentitle them to initiate proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure nor should such proceedings initiated by them be dropped merely on such failure, as proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is primarily for prevention of breach of the peace and for that purpose, in short, decide whether any and which of the parties was at the relevant date in possession of the subject of dispute, and restore him to possession, as provided in Clause (4) to that section. The decision of the question possession in such a proceeding shall be without reference to the merits of the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute. Therefore, mere failure to get a declaration or order u/s 36-A or u/s 15(1)(d) of the O.L.R. Act would not prevent the unsuccessful party to approach the Executive Magistrate to obtain an order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, nor should such a proceeding be dropped on such failure. Therefore, the first ground on which the Magistrate decided to drop the proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not correct. The Addl. Sessions Judge's finding in this aspect is therefore correct. 4. The finding of the trial Court that there was no apprehension of breach of the peace was based merely on the report dated 28-11-1977 of the police officer. The Addl. Sessions Judge's finding in this aspect is therefore correct. 4. The finding of the trial Court that there was no apprehension of breach of the peace was based merely on the report dated 28-11-1977 of the police officer. The Magistrate did not take care to ascertain or assess the truth of the said report in any manner whatsoever. On the other hand the Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, in his order says that from the very facts that both the parties are in litigating terms in respect of the lands in question and are putting forward diverse claims to the same since a long time, and that they seriously contested the revision petition before him, it appears that there is dispute between the parties likely to cause breach of the peace concerning the lands in question, and so the proceeding u/s 145 should not have been dropped by the Magistrate. On that finding he has directed the learned Executive Magistrate to proceed with the 145 proceedings, and to disputes of the same in accordance with law on merits. The basis and the ground on which the said finding and direction are given are reasonable and proper, and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The said direction therefore is confirmed. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Rath, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that the O.L.R. Court has appointed a receiver in respect of the lands in question and accordingly the 145 proceedings should not proceed. There is nothing on the records of these cases regarding the appointed of a receiver by any Court for the lands in question and his continuance as such till now. The trial Court while disposing of the proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure may consider that aspect of the matter if raised and evidence to that effect is adduced before it, and it shall dispose of the proceedings on merits in accordance with law keeping in view all matters which are presented before it in connection with these proceedings. 6. I do not find any merit in these revisions. They are accordingly dismissed. The L.C.Rs. be sent back immediately. Final Result : Dismissed