JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. 2. On the police report, proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., were initiated I and the land in question was attached after drawing up of the preliminary order by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur, by his order dated 30.6.1980. The non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 in the present case, went in revision against that order J and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur by his order dated 17.2.1984 set aside the order of attachment and directed learned Magistrate to proceed in the case in accordance with law. 3. It may be stated that one of the parties to the dispute has not claimed a right of way over it. The other party, no doubt, claims right to possess. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, observed that the land, is an open land, so it is said to be the land vested in Municipality. Civil cases are also going on between the parties.The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there was no emergency calling for attachment of the land and so the order of attachment was set aside. 4. From the respective cases of the parties it appears that there is no dispute as to possession, as such, by the respective parties. The dispute by one of the parties, is with regard to right of user as a way. Under Sub-sec. (4) of Section 147, Cr. P. C. when proceedings are initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and if it is found that in fact the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 147, Cr.P.C. then in that case, the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 147 Cr.P.C., then he may convert the proceedings to Section 147, Cr. P. C. 5. So far as the impugned order is concerned, in my opinion, it does not call for any interference, so with the above observations this revision petition is hereby dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******