Order.- This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by B-Party No. 1 in M.C. No. 62 of 1976, a proceeding instituted under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash certain orders passed in the said proceedings. The dispute in the case centered round 96.37 cents of land and a building thereon comprised in Sy. Nos. 192/1 and 219/25 of Thiruvallam village in Trivandrum Taluk. On being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed between she B-parties and the A-parties over this property, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, passed a preliminary order under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code, and the case being one of emergency, the property was attached and put in possession of the Village Officer who was appointed as the Receiver. It is said that on a petition filed by B-party No. 1, he was allowed to reside in a portion of the building by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 2. B-party No. 1 contended that the property with the building involved in the case is in his actual possession and enjoyment since 17th October, 1959, under a lease deed granted by the predecessors-in-interest of A-parties; whereas A-parties contended that the B-parties have no manner of right over the properties in dispute, that A-parties are in possession and enjoyment of this property by virtue of a gift deed dated 27th August, 1974, that the B-parties trespassed upon the property and therefore they are liable to be evicted. 3. B-party No. 1 had filed an application in O.A.No. 596 of 1972 before the Land Tribunal under section 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) for purchase of the Jenm right over the property said to have been covered by the lease deed including the property in dispute. A-parties resisted this petition and the same was dismissed on 13th December, 1974. B-party No. 1 filed an appeal against this order before the Appellate Authority, Alleppey, and this appeal was pending at the time when proceedings were instituted in M.C. No. 62 of 1976. 4. Pointing out the pendency of the above-said appeal, it was contended on behalf of B-party No. 1 that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case by virtue of the bar under section 29-A of Act 1 of 1964. 4. Pointing out the pendency of the above-said appeal, it was contended on behalf of B-party No. 1 that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case by virtue of the bar under section 29-A of Act 1 of 1964. Accepting this objection, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate stopped the proceedings and directed the Receiver to continue possession of the properties till the appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority. 5. According to B-party No. 1, his appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was dismissed for default. The fact of the dismissal of the appeal was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by A-parties by producing a copy of the order. Thereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without proceeding further and taking evidence and hearing both parties passed an order directing that the Receiver will hand over the property to A-parties and that their possession shall not be disturbed unless and until they are evicted in due course of law. 6. Subsequently on the request of the A parties to handover the building to them the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed another order directing the eviction of B-parties from he building with the assistance of the police. 7. These orders were challenged by B-party No. 1 in Criminal R.P. No. 188 of 1977 and the learned Sessions Judge held that the orders of the Magistrate are not illegal or irregular and dismissed the revision petition. 8. This order is attacked on the ground that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are without jurisdiction and are in flagrant violation of the due provisions in section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. 9. It is clear from the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed on 12th October, 1977 that further enquiry under section 145. was stopped under section 29-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act since an appeal filed by the B-parties was pending before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Alleppey No. 1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the order further stated that: "Now the A-party has produced a copy of the order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) dismissing this appeal filed by B-parties No. 1. The case came up for final hearing on 5th October, 1977. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the order further stated that: "Now the A-party has produced a copy of the order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) dismissing this appeal filed by B-parties No. 1. The case came up for final hearing on 5th October, 1977. The receiver will hand over the property to the A-parties and their possessions shall not be disturbed unless and until they are evicted in due course of law." This is the operative portion of the order of the Magistrate who has not conducted an enquiry in accordance with the provisions under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code after stopping the further enquiry under section 29-A of Act 1 of 1964. No evidence either oral or documentary has been taken by the Magistrate. It was only on the basis of that the appeal filed by B-party was dismissed by the Appellate Authority that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a final order in M.C.No. 62 of 1976. It was contended on behalf of B-Party No. 1 that this was a dismissal for default and that the Land Tribunal was only concerned with the determination of the question of tenancy right. What has to be determined in a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code is the actual possession of the subject of dispute in terms of that section during the relevant period and not the right to possession. There is therefore considerable force in the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that even if the tenancy right has not been accepted by the Land Tribunal, that does not necessarily mean that the B-parties were not in actual possession of the property at the material time. Section 145 or section 146 does not contemplate or envisage passing of an order of this nature without conducting an enquiry into the possession of the property in dispute in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. This aspect has neither been considered nor even adverted to by the Court of Session. The very foundation of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction is an apprehension of the breach of the peace regarding a dispute concerning the possession of any land or water or the boundaries thereof. This aspect has neither been considered nor even adverted to by the Court of Session. The very foundation of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction is an apprehension of the breach of the peace regarding a dispute concerning the possession of any land or water or the boundaries thereof. After passing a preliminary order, the Magistrate shall have to conduct an inquiry as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and decide, if possible, whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the preliminary order made by him, in possession of the subject of dispute. There was no taking of any evidence, as stated earlier. This apart there was not even perusal of statements or hearing of parties. An order passed without hearing parties is bad in law. In short there was no enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. A final order under sub-section 6(a) of section 145 or sub-section (1) of section 146, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be passed without conducting an enquiry or investigation into the actual possession of the disputed property as enjoined under sub-section (4) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in the circumstances, are clearly illegal and cannot be sustained. The Magistrate has to proceed with further enquiry in accordance with law after the bar under section 29-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act has ceased to operate against his jurisdiction. This has not been done in the case. 10. The orders passed on 12th October, 1977 and 6th June, 1977 are hereby set aside and the case M.C. No. 62 of 1976 is sent back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, for disposal in accordance with law after giving both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence, if any, in support of their respective contentions. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate will dispose of these proceedings within two months from the date of the receipt of the records.