Order.- The order dated 9th December, 1977 passed by the Tahsildar Executive Magistrate, Shirkaripur, in Case No. Mag. C. Mis. CR. 21/77-78, is sought to be quashed. 2. The Magistrate received first information on 3rd December, 1977 sent by the Station House Officer, Shiralakoppa police station, reporting to him that there was dispute regarding possession of lands survey Nos. 70 and 119 of Kanasogi village, Shiralakoppa Taluk, and that dispute was likely to cause breach of peace. On receipt of the same, he issued a preliminary order stating that he had received such a report and therefore the parties should appear before him at 3.00 p.m. on 6th December, 1977. Thereafter the parties appeared and he heard the parties. Ultimately he passed his final order dated 9th December, 1977 narrating that the Land Tribunal had decided in favour of one party and the other party had gone upto the High Court in a writ petition and that the High Court had set aside that order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal. After narrating so much, he has held that in view of the above proceedings, he had no jurisdiction to go into the matter, but in order to protect the crop on survey No. 70 it was in his opinion proper to appoint a receiver (the Revenue Inspector, Talagunda Hobli) to get the paddy crop harvested and to auction the same and then credit the amount in his Court. 3. Plain reading of section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is more than sufficient to demonstrate that what is stated to be preliminary order issued by the Magistrate, does not comply with the said provision It is by now well settled that unless a legally valid preliminary order is issued by an Executive Magistrate, he does not get jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore it will have to be held that the proceedings conducted by the Executive Magistrate are without jurisdiction. 4. Even if it is for the sake of arguments taken that the parties having submitted to the preliminary order, it may not be permissible to anyone of them to challenge that order at this stage. Therefore it will have to be held that the proceedings conducted by the Executive Magistrate are without jurisdiction. 4. Even if it is for the sake of arguments taken that the parties having submitted to the preliminary order, it may not be permissible to anyone of them to challenge that order at this stage. I find that the enquiry contemplated by section 145(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, has not been held in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The records maintained by the Executive Magistrate show that he has nowhere recorded evidence as contemplated by the afore-mentioned provision. 5. Apart from the afore-mentioned defects, there is another illegality committed by the Executive Magistrate. An Executive Magistrate, who has enquired into the dispute under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, gets power to pass a final order in the terms provided by section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the happening of the following events: (1) if he considers the case to be one of emergency; (2) if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in section 145; or (3) if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute. None of these things has been found by the learned Magistrate. He has simply stated that he has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because the matter was pending before the Land Tribunal on the orders of the High Court, and in order to protect the standing paddy crop, it was necessary to appoint a receiver. Such a contingency is not contemplated by section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, even on its own merits, the final order passed by the Executive Magistrate and challenged in these proceedings cannot be sustained in lew. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed and the order dated 9th December, 1977 passed by the Tahsildar Executive Magistrate, Shikaripur, in case No. Mag.C.Mis. C.R. 21/ 77-78, is set aside. The proceedings are quashed.