K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this case the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, upholding the order of the Executive Magistrate, Bhanjanagar, under S. 145. Cr. P. C. has been assailed. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner (first party) was that he was in possession of the disputed 9 cents of land, a thrashing floor, situate in village Pochalundi under Gangapur Police Station. The opposite parties threatened to dispossess him, whereby, there was apprehension of breach of peace. The case of the opposite parties (members of the second party) was that they had raised paddy crops on the disputed land and were in possession thereof. The Executive Magistrate initiated the proceeding and drew up the prelimainary order on 11-1-1984 and directed the parties to submit their written statements. The parties submitted their written statements and produced documents. Arguments advanced by their counsel were heard on 2-4-1984 and on 7-4-1984 by making reference to several documents which had been produced by the parties, he came to hold that the opposite parties were in possession of the disputed land and there was no apprehension of any breach of peace. Therefore, he cancelled the preliminary order according to the provisions of S. 145 (5), Cr. P. C. The petitioner filed a revision which came for disposal before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge who did not interfere and upheld the order. ( 3 ) MR. Manoj Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that while passing an order under S. 145 (5), Cr. P. C. cancelling the order under Sub-Sec. (1) thereof, the Executive Magistrate was not required to declare the possession of any of the parties. Therefore, he committed an illegality in this case by declaring the possession of the opposite parties in respect of the land in dispute. This contention requires examination. ( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (5) of S. 145. Cr. P. C. is quoted below for easy reference :-" (5) Nothing in this Section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under Sub-Sec. (1) shall be final. "on a plain interpretation of the provisions of the Sub-Section, it will appear that while passing an order thereunder cancelling the preliminary order passed under Sub-Sec. (1), it is not at all required that the Executive Magistrate should declare the possession of any of the parties to the proceeding in respect of the land in dispute. All that is necessary for him is that from the materials produced by the parties or any other person interested, he shall reach the satisfaction and record that ho dispute exists or has existed with regard to the land in dispute. The satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate is subjective. Once he is satisfied as above, there is no impediment for him to cancel the preliminary order and drop the proceeding without further going into the merits thereof for the purpose of declaring as to which of the parties is entitled to possession as provided in Sub-Sec. (6) of S. 145, Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) THE finding of the Executive Magistrate in the last paragraph of his order under Sub-Sec. (5) shows that he did not declare the possession of the opposite parties in respect of the land in dispute in terms of Sub-Sec. (6) of S. 145, Cr. P. C. In order to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that there did not exist any dispute and so there was no apprehension of breach of peace, he made reference to the various documents produced by the parties so as to see which of them was in possession of the land in dispute. Before passing an order under Sub-Sec. (5) of S. 145, the Executive Magistrate has to assign some reason or other on the basis of the materials placed before him and in this case because of the factum of possession, he arrived at the conclusion which has now been challenged. ( 6 ) AFTER going through the order of the Executive Magistrate and the order of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, I am of the view that the order is under Sub-Section (5) of S. 145, Cr. P. C. simpliciter. Although there is reference with regard to possession of the disputed land, the order cannot be construed to be one under Sub-Sec. (6) declaring that the opposite parties were entitled to possession of the land in dispute. P. C. simpliciter. Although there is reference with regard to possession of the disputed land, the order cannot be construed to be one under Sub-Sec. (6) declaring that the opposite parties were entitled to possession of the land in dispute. Therefore, the order of the Executive Magistrate and for that matter the order of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge should be read and construed as an order cancelling the preliminary order and dropping the proceeding, because there did not exist any dispute on the date it was passed. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons and subject to the above observations, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed. Order accordingly. .