Short Note : 1. On 23-1-1973, the petitioner Ramgovind moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jora, for action against the non-petitioners under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, alleging inter alia that they were unauthorisedly indulging in disturbing his possession over one-half portion of the agricultural lands enumerated in paragraph 1 of the application and that because of this, tension prevails and there is likelihood of the breach of the peace any moment. There was also a request in a separate application for attachment of the agricultural lands in question along with the crops standing therein. Acting on these applications, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under sub-section (1) of section 145 of the Code and invoking his powers under the third proviso to sub-section (4) of section 145 of the Code, directed the Station Officer, Jora, to attach the agricultural lands in question alongwith the crops standing therein and place it all in possession of an independent Supurtdar. The Station Officer, Jora, did comply with these orders-Vide Panchnama dated 15-2-1973 and his report dated 15-2-1973. But neither he was asked nor did he ascertain and report as to who was in the actual possession of the attached property at the time of its attachment. 2. It will, thus, be seen that if the parties were avoiding a categorical stand on the question of the exact piece or pieces of land out of these lands called the agricultural lands in question of which each party was claiming actual possession, it is because there were higher issues at stake between them which a Civil Court could alone decide. 3. Now, after holding the necessary enquiry, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jora, came to the conclusion that there was no apprehension of any breach of the peace. 3. Now, after holding the necessary enquiry, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jora, came to the conclusion that there was no apprehension of any breach of the peace. He, therefore, dropped the proceedings and while so doing, passed the following consequential order :- ^^tgka rd dqdZ 'kqnk oknxzLr Hkwfe dk lEcU/k gS iqfyl }kjk Hksts tIrh iapukek rFkk lqinZxhukek ls ;g Li"V u gksus ds dkj.k fd Hkwfe fdlds dCts ls ysdj dqdZ dh xbZ] 1968 tsŒ,yŒtsŒ 389 es nh xbZ O;oLFkk ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd O;ogkj U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ds fujkdj.k rd Hkwfe ;Fkkor U;k;ky; ds dCts esa dqdZ jgsxhA^^ Held: As already observed, the trouble has arisen because no care was taken to ascertain as to who was in possession of the attached land at the time of its attachment. Both parties stake their claim to the actual possession of the land without disclosing its identity. They felt content with accepting the attached land as the agricultural lands in question and this dispute between them remained unresolved till the proceedings were dropped. The state of affairs being as above, the attached property could not have been returned to either party. It is on being faced with this predicament that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jora, passed the impugned order which, to my mind, was the most appropriate consequential order that could have been passed in the circumstances of this case. Needless to mention that the impugned order is subject to the decision of the Civil Court which is already ceased of the matter. Reference rejected.