JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. under the following circumstances. 2. There is a dispute between the petitioner and Abdul non-petitioner No. 2 with regard to agricultural land in Khasra No. 146 in village Dhaneri Tehsil Taranagar District Churu. A litigation is pending in revenue court between them. On 5th November 1981 the petitioner submitted a report before the Superintendent of Police, Churu wherein he alleged that he was in possession of the land in dispute and there was likelihood of his possession being interfered with by non-petitioner No. 2. The said report was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to S.H.O.P.S. Dundwa Khara. After making an inquiry into the said report the police submitted a report before the S.D.M. Churu on 7th November, 1981 and after taking into consideration the aforesaid report submitted by the Police the S.D.M., Churu passed an order dated 7th November, 1981. In the order aforesaid the S.D.M. has observed that he was satisfied that the two requirement under sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr.P.C. Namely, that there was a dispute with regard to land and that the said dispute was likely to cause breach of peace were fulfilled. In the order aforesaid the SDM further observed that Crop was standing on the land in dispute and both the parties were bent upon harvesting the same and there was immediately likelihood of breach of peace and taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances it was necessary to immediately attach the property. The SDM directed that the land and the crop standing thereon be attached and that the Tehsildar Churu be appointed as the Receiver to take possession of the crop and to make arrangements for the cultivation of the land. In the aforesaid order the SDM further directed that the said order of attachment would be operative till the rights of the parties were decided by the competent Court. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order passed by the SDM. The said revision petition was partly accepted by the Sessions Judge, Churu by the order dated 4th February, 1982. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order passed by the SDM. The said revision petition was partly accepted by the Sessions Judge, Churu by the order dated 4th February, 1982. The Sessions Judge while upholding the order of attachment passed by the SDM set aside the direction given by the SDM that the said order of attachment be operative till the rights of the parties were decided by the competent court and the Sessions Judge directed the SDM to proceed with the inquiry under section 145 Cr.P.C, Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard Shri S.R. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bhagwati Prasad learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2. 4. Shri Singhvi has submitted that under section 146 Cr.P.C. an order of attachment could be passed only after a preliminary order under sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr.P.C.I has been passed, and that in the present case the SDM has passed order of attachment without passing a preliminary order under sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr P.C. 1 am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of Shri Singhvi. From the order of the SDM dated 7th November 1981 it is clear that he had applied his mind to the requirement of sub-section (I) of section 145 Cr.P.C. namely and he was satisfied that the two conditions for taking action under sub-Section (1) of section 145 Cr.P.C. (1) existence of dispute relating to land and (2) likelihood of breach of peace on account of the said dispute were present in the present case. All that the SDM has not done is that he did not fix a date requiring the parties to put in there written statement of the respective claims as respects the fact the actual possession of the subject of dispute. In my opinion the failure to give the aforesaid direction would not mean that the SDM has not passed the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr.P.C. and the order of attachment passed by him under sub-section (1) of section 146 Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction. In my opinion the failure to give the aforesaid direction would not mean that the SDM has not passed the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr.P.C. and the order of attachment passed by him under sub-section (1) of section 146 Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it in the interest of justice to direct that the SDM should fix a date in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr.P.C. requiring the parties concerned in the dispute to attend his court in person or by pleader on the said date and to put in written statement of the respective claims as respects the fact the actual possession of subject of dispute and then proceed with the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of section 145 Cr.P.C. It would also be open to the S.D.M. to withdraw the order of attachment after hearing the parties if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. The petitioner filed by the petitioner is dismissed subject to the aforesaid directions.Petition dismissed. *******