This is a criminal revision against the order dated 3.8.85 passed by Sessions Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi in Criminal Motion No. 67 (DM-4) of 1984. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed an appli­cation supported by an affidavit and the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there was breach of the peace and drew up a proceeding u/s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the Code" for short. Immediately there after learned Magistrate passed an order directing attachment of the disputed land in pur­ported exercise of power u/s. 146(1) holding that it would be difficult to maintain the peace unless the land was attached. The order of attachment and drawal of proceedings was made on 16.4.84. Learned Magistrate posted the matter on 25.7.84 for filling written statements and documents by the parties. On 18.5.84 on an application filed by one Mahiruddin Sheikh, learned. Magistrate appointed him as a receiver for cultivating the dis­puted land and to submit accounts to the Court. Learned Magis­trate directed that a copy of the order be sent to the officer-in-charge Dalgaon Police Station. On 25.7.84 the opposite party-second party did not appear and learned Magistrate considered the testimony of the first party and declared possession of the land in favour of the first party. He also relied on a document. He was satisfied that the land had been in possession of the petitioner-first party for more than 25 years and confirmed possession in his favour directing that the first party should remain in possession of the disputed land until evicted there ­from in due course by law. 3. Against the order dated 16.5.84, 18.5.84 and 25.7.84 the opposite party filed an application to the learned Sessions Judge questioning the validity of the drawal of the proceedings by the learned Magistrate. The opposite party also questioned the validity of the order u/s. 146(1) of 'the Code' and further challenged that the final order dated 25.7.84 was passed without seining any notice on him. The opposite party also questioned the validity of the order of appointment of receiver without serving any notice to him. 4. Learned Sessions Judge held that the order rendered u/s. 146(I) of "the Code" was without jurisdiction and accor­dingly set aside the order of attachment of the land passed by the learned Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge also held that the order of appointment of receiver was illegal. 4. Learned Sessions Judge held that the order rendered u/s. 146(I) of "the Code" was without jurisdiction and accor­dingly set aside the order of attachment of the land passed by the learned Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge also held that the order of appointment of receiver was illegal. Having held so learned Sessions Judge set aside the preliminary order drawing the proceedings as will as the final order. 5. Mr. C. K. Sarma Barua, learned counsel for the peti­tioner has very fairly submitted that the impugned order u/s. 146 (1) of "the Code" attaching the land has been rightly set aside by learned Judge in view of the decisions in Kshetra Mohan Sarkar, 1978 Cr. L.J. 936 (Gauhati) and Mathuralal vs. Bhanwarlal, : AIR 1980 SC 242 : 1980 Cr. L.J. (SC) 1. In the instant case learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach the land as it was not a case of emergency. It was not a case which attracted the provisions of Sec. 146 of "the Code". Mr. Barua, learned counsel has very fairly submitted that the order of attachment is. illegal and it has been rightly set aside by learned Sessions Judge. In the result the order of attachment of the land and the order of appointment of the receiver fell through. It is however, very strange as to why and under what circumstances a stranger to the proceedings was appointed as receiver. There was no power and jurisdiction of learned Magis­trate to appoint receiver on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside which I hereby do. Further, the appointment of receiver was made without serving any notice to the present opposite party. As such, the order dated 18.5.84 is invalid and, accordingly, it has been rightly set aside. 6. However, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that in view of the illegal attachment of the land the preliminary order became invalid can not be supported. If the orders of attachment and/or appointment of receiver were bad, on that count those orders could be declared invalid but the proceedings could not be quashed if it had been legally drawn up by Magis­trate. In the instant case, learned Magistrate was satisfied, on perusal of petition and affidavit, that there was apprehension of breach of the peace and, accordingly, drew up the procee­dings. In the instant case, learned Magistrate was satisfied, on perusal of petition and affidavit, that there was apprehension of breach of the peace and, accordingly, drew up the procee­dings. Under these circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge setting aside the preliminary order was illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside, which I hereby do. 7. It appears that the final order can not be sustained. On perusal of the records I find that the opposite party complai­ned before the learned Sessions Judge that he did not receive any notice from the Court to submit his written statement and documents which he was entitled to get under the law. I find from the records that a notice was issued to the opposite party to be served by the police calling upon him to submit his writ­ten statement and documents but there is no endorsement of the police officer who served the notice. In any view of the matter when there is no endorsement in the notice except that it was to be executed by A.S.I. Shri Deben Bora, the notice could not be treated as duly served on the opposite party in accordance with law, more so when another notice intima­ting the opposite party about the appointment of receiver was served by the police officer who certified that the said notice bad been duly served. It appears that the opposite party is an illiterate person. Under these circumstances, I am constrai­ned to hold that in the instant case no notice had been ser­ved on the opposite party to submit his written statement and documents on 26.5.84 and to contest the action. In this view of the matter the final order dated 25.7.84 must be set aside. I am constrained to hold that no notice had been served on the opposite party-second party and as such, the impugned order dated 25.7.84 must be set aside, which I hereby do. 8. For the foregoing reasons I set aside the final order dated 25.7.84. I also set aside the order of appointment of the receiver for the reasons alluded. I also hold that the order of attachment is invalid and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is set aside. Now the only order that survives is the order of drawl of proceeding which shall continue. It was a valid order. I also set aside the order of appointment of the receiver for the reasons alluded. I also hold that the order of attachment is invalid and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is set aside. Now the only order that survives is the order of drawl of proceeding which shall continue. It was a valid order. Let the records of the case be transmitted to the lear­ned Executive Magistrate, Mangaldoi for disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the record. However, notice on the opposite party must be served through police with a direc­tion that the contents of the notice should be explained to the opposite party. The reason is that the opposite party is an unlettered person who has put thumb impression. The execu­ting police officer shall clearly explain to the opposite party the contents of the notice and the notice should contain clearly that the opposite party is to submit his written statement and documents in support of his claim in respect of the disputed land. The disputed land should fully be described. After careful consideration of the service report learned Magistrate shall pro­ceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. The amount which is lying at the disposal of the court should be paid to the party in whose favour the final order shall be made by the learned Magistrate. 9. In the result the petition is allowed to the extent indica­ted above. Send down the records forthwith.