( 1 ) ON a report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, BEML Police station, Robertsonpet, on 4-3-1975 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolar sub-Divn, passed a preliminary order on 15-3-1975 under S. 145 (1), crlpc (New) in case No CMC 15 of 1975, as according to him, there was a dispute in respect of a portion of Survey No. 6912 of Doddavalagamadi village, measuring 2 acres 28 guntas between the petitioners (members of the II party) on the one hand and the respondents (members of the i Party) on the other. Then, on 29-7-1975 the Sub-Divl Magistrate, passed a final order holding that Lakshmiram Singh, first respondent (first member of the first Party) was in possession and in occupation of the said land on the date of preliminary order and as such, he is entitled to possession of the said land until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Sessions Judge at Kolar in crlrp. 31 of 1975 and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dt. 22-6-76, dismissed the said Revision Petition and aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (new ). ( 2 ) IT appears to be the case of the petitioners that the land belonged to Ramakrishna Reddy the father of respondents 3 and 4 and husband of respondent-2 and that one Krishna Singh had leased it to them some 20 years back and since then they were cultivating it as tenants without any interruption. On the other hand, it appears to be the case of the respondents, that the said land was not leased to the petitioners either by Krishna Singh or any one else and that on the death of Ramakrishna reddy the respondents 2 to 4 and Viswanatha Reddy (since deceased), came into possession of the said land and continued to be in possession of the same till the same was sold to the first respondent on 28-12-1974 under a registered sale deed, for a consideration of Rs. 9,000. 9,000. It appears to be their further case, that on the date of sale, respondent-1 was put in possession and the petitioners without any justification whatsoever being instigated by some of the villagers who wanted to purchase the said land, started creating trouble by interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land by respondent-1. ( 3 ) THE parties, apart from producing affidavits of various persons, also relied upon some documents. But, it appears that there was nothing on the side of the petitioners to show that the said land was leased to them by Krishna Singh at any time and they were cultivating the same as tenants. On the other hand, the Sub-Divl Magistrate, relying upon the entries in the pahani wherein the third respondent is shown to have cultivated the said land till he sold the land in favour of first respondent, came to the conclusion that the first respondent was in possession of the said land on the date of the preliminary order, In reaching that conclusion, what further weighed with him was the recital in the sale deed to the effect that possession of the land was handed over to the first respondent on the date of the sale itself and the affidavits of 5 persons filed on behalf of respondents. Consequently, the Sub-Divl Magistrate, Kolar, passed the impugned order without attaching any value to the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners and in that connection this is what he has stated :" Further on going through the entries in column 12 (2) for the years 1965-66 to 1974-75, it is seen that Sri Krishna Singh had cultivated these lands for three years from 1965-66 to 1967-68. For four years from 1968-69 to 1971-72 as can be seen from the entries, these lands had been lying fellow (Banjar) and from the years 1972-73 it is shown that both Sriyuths, Srinivasareddy and Viswanathareddy have been cultivating the lands including the year 1974-75. If the members of the II Party had been cultivating this land along with late krishna Singh, their names should have found a place at least for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68 wherein it is shown Sri Krishna Singh is said to have cultivated the land on vara basis. If the members of the II Party had been cultivating this land along with late krishna Singh, their names should have found a place at least for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68 wherein it is shown Sri Krishna Singh is said to have cultivated the land on vara basis. It is therefore, difficult to believe the version of the II Party that they were cultivating these lands as tenants since about 20 years along with the patel krishna Singh, in the absence of any other documents in support of their contention. " ( 4 ) IT was contended by Sri Chandrasekhariah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the proceedings before Sub-Divl magistrate, were without jurisdiction and as such , the preliminary as well as the final orders made by Sub-Div] Magistrate and as also that of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. Elaborating the contention, what he submitted was that in proceedings under S. 145, Crlpc, if the party pleads that he is in possession as a tenant of the disputed land, the Court shall have to stay the proceedings and refer the question whether the party raising that plea is a tenant or not to the Land Tribunal and in support of his contention, he relied upon the provisions of sub-sees (i) and (ii) of S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which read thus :" Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force- (i) No Civil or Criminal Court or Officer or Authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land, other than proccedings under Chapter IV of this Act, decide the question whether such land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March 1874; (ii) such Court or Officer or Authority shall stay such suit or proceedings in so far as such question is concerned and refer the same to the Tribunal for decision. "in my opinion, it is difficult to accede to the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. "in my opinion, it is difficult to accede to the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The inquiry contemplated under Section 145 Cripc is a limited one i. e. , with regard to the actual possession of the land in dispute at the material time, and not with regard to the question whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of such land, and the provisions of either sub-sec (1) or sub-sec (2) of S. 133 of the Act cannot be taken to have curtailed the power conferred by S. 145 Cripc on the Court to embark upon such inquiry, and in my opinion, the provisions contained in the said sub-sections are not applicable to proceedings of this kind which are intended to achieve a special object viz to prevent breach of peace arising from such dispute and to afford protection to the person found to be in possession on the material date in the manner provided under sub-sec (6) of S. 145 Cripc, to hold otherwise is to render the provisions of S. 145 Cripc nugatory which is now- where contemplated. ( 5 ) IT was then contended that the affidavits filed by the parties have not been taken into consideration and the whole matter has been dealt with in a casual manner. I do not think, there is any force in this contention. As mentioned earlier, the Sub-Divl Magistrate, declined to place reliance on the affidavits produced on benalf of the petitioners, on the ground that the tacts set out therein were not in conformity with the entries in the Record of Rights and the entries made in the Pahanies. Therefore, it is not correct to. say that the affidavits were not taken into consideration while giving the finding as to which of the contending parties was in possession of the disputed land. I may also observe here, that no case is made out for invoking powers of this Court under S. 482, Crlpc and consequently the petition must fail and accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .s