M. NAGAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition by the II Party before the Executive Magistrate is against the order dated 13-7-1981 passed by the sessions Judge, Kolar, in Crl. R. P. No. 8 of 1981 allowing the said petition and remanding the case to the Taluk Magistrate, Kolar, for fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observation made in the body of the said order after affording opportunities to both the sides to establish their claims as to physical possession of the subject of dispute. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case : are the sub-Inspector of Police, Srinivasapur, filed a report before the Taluk Magistrate, Kolar Taluk, Kolar alleging that the 1st Party and the 2nd Party, who are the residents of Jannappanahalli village, Kolar Taluk, have, committed wrongful and unlawful acts involving breach of peace and distrubing peace and public tranquillity and indulged in criminal activities due to ill-will in connection with a property dispute. ( 3 ) THE Sub-Inspector further alleged inhis report that the First Party member has given a complaint to the Deputy superintendent of Police, Chintarnani, alleging that he is the owner of Sy. No. 51 of Jannappanahalli village and he had raised ragi crop and, when it was ready for harvest the Second Party and his followers obstructed and prevented him from harvesting crop. The, Second party member also gave a complaint that the disputed land is in his possession and enjoyment and that the crop was raised by him in the disputed land. As both the parties were claiming possession of the land and that they have raised the crop in question, the report said that there is every likelihood of breach of peace if each of the parties was allowed to harvest the crop and; thereby the Sub-Inspector prayed that action may be taken against the parties under the provisions of S. 145 of Cr. P. C. The leamed Taluka Magistrate, after examining the report and also recording the sworn statement of the sub-Inspector, came to the conclusion that the disputed crop was raised in between Sy. No. 50 and Sy. No. 51 on an area of about 15ft. P. C. The leamed Taluka Magistrate, after examining the report and also recording the sworn statement of the sub-Inspector, came to the conclusion that the disputed crop was raised in between Sy. No. 50 and Sy. No. 51 on an area of about 15ft. for whi'ch both the parties were claiming ownership of the land and having satisfied himself on the likelihood of breach of peace and public tranquillity in the said village in respect of the dispute concerning the said land passed the preliminary order directing the parties to appear before him on 5-3-1981 at 11. 00 A. M. and to put in written statements of their respective claims and actual possession of those lands and further to put in such documents and to adduce evidence by putting affidavits. The said preliminary order was passed on 17-2-1981. ( 4 ) AS could be seen from the records, in pursuance of the notices issued to the parties as aforesaid, the parties have appeared before the learned Magistrate on 16-3-1981 on which day itself the learned Magistrate recorded the restatements and passed the final order holding that the Second Party has raised the crop on the land in dispute and, as such, he is deemed to be in possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, ordered that the Second Party is entitled to be in possession of the land until he is evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbid all disturbance of the possession of the land until such eviction. ( 5 ) THE First Party aggrieved by the said order preferred Cr. R. P. No. 8 of 1981 before the sessions Judge, Kolar, who after hearing the parties, allowed the sad revision petition and set aside the final order passed by the Taluka Magistrate and remanded the case for fresh disposal according to law, as fully stated supra. The Second Party aggrieved by the said order of remand has challenged the legality and correctness of the same in this revision. ( 6 ) SRI. The Second Party aggrieved by the said order of remand has challenged the legality and correctness of the same in this revision. ( 6 ) SRI. B. A. Reddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner II Party, vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained in law in view of the fact that the learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the parties concerned when they appeared before him and on the basis of the same he rightly came to the conclusion that the II Party is in actual possession of the property in dispute and has raised the crop thereon. If that is so, he contended that there was absolutely no necessity for the learned Sessions Judge to remand the case in question for reconsideration after giving further opportunity to the parties concerned. But, however, Sri. M. N. Gurulingappa, learned counsel for the first respondent i Party, submitted that the order under revision is according to law and there is absolutely no justification to interfere with the same and commended for acceptance of the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. Sri. A. M. Farooq, learned High Court Government Pleader, pointed out the relevant provisions with regard to the procedure to be followed by the Executive Magistrate while passing the order in question and relied upon S. 145 (1) and 145 (4) Cr. P. C. and submitted that the learned sessions Judge was justified in remanding the case for fresh disposal according to law after giving sufficient opportunity to both parties. There, is substance in the contentions of the learned High court Government Pleader and also of the learned! counsel for the first respondent. ( 7 ) A perusal of the order sheet, which is more fully adverted to above, clearly indicates that the preliminary order was passed 6by the learned Magistrate or. 17-2-1981 and the Parties were called upon to appear before him on 5-3-1981 to put in their statements with regard to their respective claims regarding the actual possession of the land 'n question. The Parties appeared before him on 5-3-1981 and the case was adjourned to 16-3-1981 on which day the statements of the parties were recorded and passed the final order on 18-3- 1981 wherein he came to the conclusion that the II Pa,rty was in actual possession of the land in dispute. The Parties appeared before him on 5-3-1981 and the case was adjourned to 16-3-1981 on which day the statements of the parties were recorded and passed the final order on 18-3- 1981 wherein he came to the conclusion that the II Pa,rty was in actual possession of the land in dispute. It is no doubt true that the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate disclose that the I Party member admitted that the II Party member unlawfully trespassed into a portion of his land and had raised the crop although he was ready for raising the crop by himself and his brothers. It cannot be disputed that the learned Magistrate is only concerned with the actual possession of the land in question on the date of passing the preliminary order. But, the point to be considered is whether the learned Magistrate has followed the mandatory provisions of S. 145 (1) and (4) Cr. P. C. A perusal of the said two sub-sections clearly indicates that after passing the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. , he has to, without reference to the, merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such other evidence, if any,, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-sec (1), in possession of the subject of dispute. The proviso contemplates that, if it appears to him that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by him, or after that date and before the date of the order under sub-sec (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession, on the date of his order under sub-section (1 ). It is, therefore, clear that, when the parties appeared before him on 5-3-1981, the case was adjourned to the next date of hearing, i. e. , 16-3-1981, on which day the parties were present and they were not represented by the counsels and the learned Magistrate proceeded to record their statements and ( thereafter, passed the impugned order. It is, therefore, clear that, when the parties appeared before him on 5-3-1981, the case was adjourned to the next date of hearing, i. e. , 16-3-1981, on which day the parties were present and they were not represented by the counsels and the learned Magistrate proceeded to record their statements and ( thereafter, passed the impugned order. Sub-Sec. (4) of S. 145 of Cr. P. C. enjoins that the learned Magistrate has to peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take, such other dence, if any, as he thinks necessary and, thereafter decide as to which party is in possession on the date of passing the preliminary order. In the instant case, the mere presence of the Parties should not have prompted the learned Magistrate to record their statements straightaway and, thereafter, pass the final order as contemplated under S. 145 (4) Cr. P. C. He should have asked them whether they are going to file their statements and also put in any other documents and,, after receiving such evidence as may be produced by them and, if he feels necessary, taking further evidence if any and hearing both parties, he should have passed the final order. But, the learned Magistrate has, with utter disregard to all the. aforesaid mandatory provisions and in a way which is opposed to the principles of natural justice. , proceeded to record their statements and passed the final order which is in violation of mandatory provisions of law. Only on the basis of the statements recorded; without giving them opportunity to produce further evidence and thereafter hearing them, that too when they were not represented by the counsel, the learned Magistrate was not justified, in solely relying upon the Police report and the socalled admission made by the I Party, in coming to the conclusion that II party, though trespassed into the land in question, was in possession of the land in question. The learned Sessions judge has adverted to these aspects of the matter and rightly come to the conclusion that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was illegal inasmuch as sufficient opportunity was not given to both parties to put in their statements, to adduce their evidence and did not call for further evidence, and without hearing the parties passed the final order. In that aspect of the matter, the learned Sessions judge was justified in allowing the revision petition and remanding the case for further enquiry as indicatrxl therein. If that is so, there is illegality eviin the inpugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. R. P. No. 8 of 1981 which does not call for interference by this Court. . ( 8 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. However, the learned Magistrate shall hold the enquiry according to law after giving the parties sufficient opportunity as aforesaid and dispose of the same within 2 months from today. ( 9 ) LET the record's be, despatched to the Courts below immediately. --- *** --- .