JUDGMENT 1. - Gurmenhindersingh Sandhu has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of an application under sec. 482 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing an order dated 16-9-76 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur under section 146 Cr. P.C. and for quashing all subsequent proceedings taken by him and for quashing the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 21-4-79 whereby the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 10-7-78 was up-held and it was ordered that the Receiver on the disputed property would continue. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated as follows The S.H.O. P.S. Gajsingpur initiated proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. against Gurmohindersingh petitioner and Gurpalsingh non petitioner by way of filing a complaint. It was stated in the complaint by the S.H.O. that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace existed concerning agricultural land mentioned in the complaint between the two brothers, namely, Gurmohindersingh and Gurpalsingh and that necessary action should be taken in the matter. On receiving this complaint the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order in writing stating the grounds of his being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed between the parties concerning the land in question. He therefore, required the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court and to put in written statement of their respective claims with regard to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Along with the preliminary order he passed an order of attachment of the land in dispute on the ground that he considered the case to be one of emergency and appointed the Tehsildar Padampur as Receiver of the disputed land. 3. Thereafter on 10-5-76, the petitioner and the non-petitioner presented an application in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur that no dispute likely to cause breach of peace existed between them concerning the land under controversy and so the proceedings may be dropped. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, thereupon, dropped the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C., released the land from attachment and directed the Receiver to deliver the possessions of the land in dispute to the person from whom he had text the possession. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, thereupon, dropped the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C., released the land from attachment and directed the Receiver to deliver the possessions of the land in dispute to the person from whom he had text the possession. In compliance of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Receiver handed over the possession of the disputed property to the petitioners on 11-5-76. and obtained a receipt from the latter acknowledging the fact of the delivery of possession to him. Later on, on 15-9-76 the S.H.O. P.S. Gajsinghpur again moved the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner and the non-petitioner under section 145 Cr. P.C. because in his opinion there was likelihood of breach of peace on account of dispute between the two brothers relating to possession of the land in question. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karanpur passed a preliminary order after being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed between the parties concerning the land under controversy. Along with the preliminary order he passed another order by which the land in question was attached and a Receiver was appointed. Aggrieved by this order dated 16th, September 1976, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar which was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge together with another revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 30th July, 1976. The Additional Sessions Judge while quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karanpur dated 13th July 1976, partly accepted the revision petition against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,dated 16-9-76 and directed the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether there is no longer any likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard to the disputed land and if he is so satisfied he may withdraw the attachment. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, thereupon, passed an order on 10-7-78 that he was satisfied that likelihood of breach of the peace continues with regard to the land under controversy and so the attachment cannot be withdrawn under the proviso to sub-section (1) of sec. 146 Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar who after going through the record and hearing the parties dismissed it. Hence the petitioner has come up to this Court under section 482 Cr. 146 Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar who after going through the record and hearing the parties dismissed it. Hence the petitioner has come up to this Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. 4. I have carefully gone through the entire record of the case and heard Mr. M.R. Bhansali learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K, Mathur Advocate for non-petitioner No. 1 and Mr. S.S. Bhandawat Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karanpur did not properly determine the question of emergency before issuing the order of attachment without hearing the parties. It was further argued that an order of attachment should clearly disclose how the Magistrate considers a case of emergency and how he is convinced that the emergency is of such a nature that an exparte attachment could be ordered without affording an opportunity to the either side whose interests are likely to suffer. In support of his contention Mr. M.R. Bhansali learned counsel relied upon an authority of this Court Bhagwandas v. Suggan ( AIR 1965 Raj. 143 ). Mr. A.K. Mathur learned counsel for non petitioner on the other hand urged that the above contention cannot be raised in this court in view of the fact that it has been advanced before the Additional Sessions Judge Ganganagar in his previous revision petition and was finally over-ruled by him. 6. I have considered the above rival contentions. It is apparent on the record that the petitioner by way of a revision petition in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, challenged the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Karanpur on 16-9-76 by which the land was attached after passing a preliminary order in writing under section 145 Cr. P.C. and Receiver was appointed to take possession of the land. P.C. and Receiver was appointed to take possession of the land. The Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not set aside the order dated 16-9-76 but modified it to the extent that the Sub Divisional Magistrate may withdraw the attachment if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard the land in dispute and for that purpose he may make an inquiry whether or not there is any likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard to the land. This decision of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 27-1-77 was not challenged by the petitioner in the High Court by way of an application in revision or by way of a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. Hence this order has become final and now it is not open for the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 16-9-76 directing attachment of the disputed land and appointment of Receiver thereof was Illegal, improper or unreasonable on account of absence of proper determination of the question of emergency by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before issuing it without hearing the petitioner. Hence I do not feel inclined to interfere with the preliminary order and the order of attachment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 16-9-76. 7. It was further contended by Mr. M.R. Bhansali learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate ought to have withdrawn the attachment of the land in dispute because there was no material on the record to satisfy him that likelihood of the breach of the peace still continues with regard to the subject of dispute. The above contention is also devoid of substance because in his order dated 10.7.78 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate stated reasons for being satisfied that there is still likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard to the subject of the dispute. The reasons give by him are that cases of theft and criminal trespass under Section 447 and 379 I.P.C. have been registered and challaned against the parties which clearly indicated that there is likelihood of breach of peace with regard to the land under controversy. The Sub Divisional Magistrate give previous history of the dispute also in his order. The reasons give by him are that cases of theft and criminal trespass under Section 447 and 379 I.P.C. have been registered and challaned against the parties which clearly indicated that there is likelihood of breach of peace with regard to the land under controversy. The Sub Divisional Magistrate give previous history of the dispute also in his order. He stated that proceedings under section 145 and section 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the parties in the past also and after some time the Police had to move the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for initiation of proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C.In view of these reasons, it is very difficult to hold that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karanpur had no material before him to satisfy himself as to the existence of likelihood of breach of peace on account of a dispute relating to possession of the land between the two brother i.e. the parties. The S.H.O. P.S. Gajsingpur in the complaint under section 145 Cr.P.C. presented before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karanpur clearly stated that Gurpalsingh cultivated Gwar in killa No. 19 of Murba No. 17 but his brother Gurmohindersingh cultivated moong' in the same field causing damage to the Gwar as a result of which a criminal case u/s. 447 I.P.C. was registered on 16.8.76. In these circumstances the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rightly held that the likelihood of breach of peace continues with regard to the disputed land and that the attachment of the land shall continue. It is the Magistrate who has to satisfy himself as to the existence of likelihood of breach of peace on account of a dispute relating to possession of immovable property, and if there is prima facie material on the record on the basis of which he could satisfy himself that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning the land in dispute existed, this Court will be slow in exercise of its inherent powers to interfere with his satisfaction and to substitute its own opinion. 8. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and by the Sessions Judge Ganganagar on 16-9-76 and 21-4-79 respectively cannot be declared to be illegal, improper or unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. No case is made out for interference with these orders in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. 9. No case is made out for interference with these orders in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. 9. The application under section 482 Cr. P.C., is therefore, dismissed.Application Dismissed. *******