ORDER S.K. Kader, J. 1. The petitioner who is the B-party in M. C. No. 9 of 1978, a proceeding under S.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks to revise the order passed against her directing that she should vacate from the Chira mentioned in the schedule appended to the order within seven days of receipt of the order. According to the petitioner, she is a landless agricultural labourer who has been residing since 1974 in a shed put up on the Chira which is a poramboke land comprised in Sy. No. 764/I. C. in Alleppey village and she has applied to the Government for assignment of the said land in her favour and the application is pending consideration before the Revenue Authorities; while the A-party, the first respondent herein, maintained that the Chira in question is portion of 88.3 cents of land purchased by her, that she has been in possession of the same and that the B-party trespassed upon this property. 2. It was on the basis of a report made by the Sub Inspector of Police, Alleppey South, that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alleppey, passed a preliminary order under S.147 Cr. P. C. directing both parties to appear before him on March 1, 1978 at 11 a. m. to file documents and affidavits and also to adduce evidence, if any, in support of their respective claims. It is said that in pursuance of this order, the parties appeared before him and filed written statements. It is seen from the order challenged before this Court that the B-party produced a copy of the application for assignment of the land, a memo received from the Revenue Ministry and a written objection in support of her contentions. The order under challenge does not disclose A-party having produced any evidence either oral or documentary in support of her contentions. 3. The counsel for the petitioner attacked the order contending that the order is illegal, that the order is not based on any evidence adduced on the side of the A-party and that the entire procedure adopted is wrong. 4. It is seen from the order that the dispute between the parties was one regarding possession of the Chira described in the schedule. 4. It is seen from the order that the dispute between the parties was one regarding possession of the Chira described in the schedule. The final order itself begins as follows: "On being satisfied from the report 1st read above that there existed a dispute likely to cause breach of peace between A and B parties regarding the possession of the property described in the schedule appended below a preliminary order under S.147 Cr. P. C. was issued. " The report referred to is the report of the Sub Inspector of Police. It was on the basis of the said preliminary order that the subsequent proceedings were continued and the final order under attack was passed. It is regretable to note that the Sub Divisional Magistrate appears to be unaware of the distinction and difference between S.145 and 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While S.145 deals with a dispute concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, which is likely to cause breach of peace; S.147 deals with a dispute concerning right of user of any land or water, which, is likely to cause a breach of the peace. The issue for determination in a proceeding under S.145 Cr. P. C. is the actual physical possession of the land or water or the boundaries thereof, whereas under S.147 Cr. P. C. what has to be decided is the existence of a right of user of land or water. The dispute which clothes the Magistrate with jurisdiction under S.147 Cr. P. C. must be one regarding any alleged right of user of any land or water. In order to obtain an order establishing a right of user under this section, the person making the claim must show, where the right alleged is exercisable at all times, that he has exercised his right within three months before the institution of the proceeding under the section or where the right is exercisable only at particular seasons or occasions, that he has exercised it during the last of such seasons or occasions before the institution of the proceeding. There is nothing in the order to show that there was any dispute between A and B parties regarding the right of user of the Chira described in the schedule which was likely to cause a breach of the peace. There is nothing in the order to show that there was any dispute between A and B parties regarding the right of user of the Chira described in the schedule which was likely to cause a breach of the peace. On the other hand, as stated earlier, what has been specifically stated in the order is that the dispute between the parties was regarding possession of the Chira in question. In such a case, the proper section that is applicable is S.145 Cr. P. C. and not S.147 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate appears to have been confused in this regard and he seems to be under the impression, as could be seen from the preliminary order, that he can interfere even in cases where the dispute between the parties is regarding title to immovable property. Under sub-s.(2) of S.147, the Magistrate can decide whether any right claimed by the parties existed only after the perusal of the statements put in by the parties and considering the effect of the evidence, if any, adduced by them and not solely on the basis of a report made by the Sub Inspector of Police, as has been done in this case. After extracting the report of the Sub Inspector of Police in the order, the Magistrate concludes as follows: "From the above report it is clear that the counter petitioner is only a trespasser who intends to cause inconvenience to the petitioner. " Evidently the Magistrate has not understood the scope and effect of S.147 or S.145 Cr. P. C. There is no finding as required under sub-s.2 and 3 of S.147 Cr. P. C. in this case. The procedure followed by the Magistrate was clearly wrong and illegal. 5. The above infirmities and the thoroughly, unsatisfactory nature of the order compel interference in revision. In the result, the order impugned is not aside and the revision petition is allowed. This will not preclude the Sub Divisional Magistrate from initiating appropriate proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he is satisfied on the materials before him that such an action is necessary to prevent breach of the peace.