Judgment M. P. Verma, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 28.4.78, passed by the sub divisional Magistrate, Bettiah, in a proceeding under Sec.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, over the rignts of using water through a pyne. The learned Magistrate by order dated 29.4.78 has finally confirmed the right of the first party. The second party has filed this revision application against the said order. 2. The short facts are these ; The water running through river Thori, which emerges from Nepal irrigates the lands of villages Ekwa and Parsoni under P. S. Gaunaha in the district of West Champeran. It appears that while the servant of Iswari Marwari (first party) was irrigating the field of his malik, sk. Shani and Istaiyan (member of the seond party) wanted to divert the flow of water to their village Parsauni through pynes no.35 and 47. It was objected on behalf of the first party which led to a marpit. The matter was reported to the Police, who investigated the case. The S. I. of Police station Gaunaha reported serious apprehension of breach of peace, on the basis of which, magistrate ordered the starting of a proceeding under Sec.147 of the Code of Criminal procedure and directed the parties to put in their respective claim in the court filing written statements. 3. The land of the petitioner lies in village Personi whereas of the opposite parties in village Ekwa. A Panchayati was held in the village and it was agreed upon between the parties that the villagers of Parsoni will take water at least once or twice a week to irrigate their fields. It is now alleged that the first party (respondent no.2) did not allow them to draw water by putting a bundh over it. it is relevant to mention here that the village Ekwa is on a high level and, therefore, it was essential to put a bundh over the pyne for storage of water in order to irrigate the fields. The villagers of Ekwa generally take water from payne no.35. It has been stated that the people of village Parsoni are entiled to take surplus water which overflows the pyne, only after the fields of village Ekwa get irrigated and not otherwise. 4. The villagers of Ekwa generally take water from payne no.35. It has been stated that the people of village Parsoni are entiled to take surplus water which overflows the pyne, only after the fields of village Ekwa get irrigated and not otherwise. 4. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the case of both the parties and relying on the Fard-abpasi (survey records of right for the purpose of irrigation) found that the villagers of Ekwa have a right and they are entitled to draw water from pyne no.35 to irrigate their fields. It has further been stated by the learned Magistrate that he held a local inspection and he found that the crops in the fields of village Parsoni had got dried up for want of water and the people of Parsoni were actually in need of water but they were entitled to irrigate their fields only from the surplus and extra-water overflowing pyne no.35 after irrigating the fields of Ekwa people. 5. The impugned order of the learned Magistrate has been challenged in this court on two points ; firstly, that the learned Magistrate did not allow the parties to adduce any oral evidence and, secondly, that the learned Magistrate did not conform to the procedure laid down for local inspection which he held in this case. Coming to the question of adducing oral evidence in the proceeding, it appears that no such evidence was brought on the records of the court below, but the question arises as to what procedure the Magistrate should have followed when the parties appeared and filed their written statements Sec.47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks that whenever an Executive magistrate is satisfied from the report of a Police Officer or upon other information, that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists regarding any alleged right of user of any land or water within his local jurisdiction, whether such be claimed as an easement or otherwise, he shall make an order in writing, stating tire grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader on a specified dated and time and to put in written statements of their respective claims. While holding enquiry with regard to the claims of the respective parties, the magistrate shall apply the provisions of Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as for as practicable. It may be noted here that a Magistrate on perusal of the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence, if he so considers necessary, and decide the dispute arising out between the parties. So far as evidence is concerned, true it is that no such prayer was made in the court below on behalf of either party to adduce evidence, but it appears to me that the Magistrate has acted in an unsatisfactory mannor. The relevant order dated 20.4.78 passed by the learned Magistrate reads : - "seond party status quo be maintained. Refers to survey records of right. First party bundh in Nepal over the stream is built by ekwa (35) Villagers. Parsauni (15,47) has right to surplus waters only. "ekwa cannot take water in 43 pyne of the village without putting block in the main pyne 35. Tomorrow for order. " 6. It appears that the above order has not been signed by the learned magistrate. Later I find that an order has been passed, which is the impugned order, but it does not bear any date. It cannot oe said that the two orders were passed on the same date. From the persual of the entire order of the lower court placed before me, I find that no opportunity was granted to any of the parties to adduce evidence, If any, with regard to their respective claims over the right for user of water. Parties were never called upon to adduce evidence, and Farda-abpasi is the only document, on which the Magistrate has passed his findings. Of course, it appears that he made a spot inspection. But it is not known when he V/s. sited the site for inspection and whether it was done in presence of the pa ties, inasmuch as the Magistrate did not prepare any memorandum of local inspection to form part of the record. Local inspections are held for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record. But it is not known when he V/s. sited the site for inspection and whether it was done in presence of the pa ties, inasmuch as the Magistrate did not prepare any memorandum of local inspection to form part of the record. Local inspections are held for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record. Sec.310 of the code of Criminal Procedure lays down that any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any enquiry, trail or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place which is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such enquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum which shall form part of the record of the case and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the parties if desired, free of costs. I will simply repeat and say that the learned Magistrate acted in an unsatisfactory manner in not preparing any memorandum of the local inspection and in holding the local inspection without intimation to the parties concerned.6. For the reasons as stated above, the impugned order of the learned magistrate is vitiated and cannot be allowed to stand. 7. In the result the application succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. In case there be any apprehension of breach of the peace in further, a proceeding under Sec.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be drawn up against the persons concerned and the. matter decided in accordance with law. Application allowed