JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred against the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Kendrapara, dated 22-1-1986 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 122 of 1981, a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, dropping the proceeding and vacating the order of attachment earlier passed. 2. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for both the parties by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court the attachment over the disputed land is continuing till today. 3. In the said 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings the Petitioners and proforma opposite parties 17 to 43 were members of the first party and opposite parties 1 to 16 were members of the second party. The said 145 Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings were initiated at the instance of the members of the first party who claimed that they were in possession of the disputed land of 2 acres by virtue of the lease granted to them by the State Government. The second party members claimed that as the disputed land happens to be quite close to their own lands, they reclaimed the same and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since long. After the evidence was adduced and documents were filed by both the parties in support of their respective contentions, the learned Magistrate fixed a date for arguments. Admittedly none of the parties appeared on that day. Hence the learned Magistrate after considering the materials on record, passed the impugned order on 22-1-1986. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings only on the ground that as the disputed lands are admittedly char lands, the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kalipada Das Vs. The State. That is a case u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure In that decision what is held is that nice questions as to the ownership of the chars in a river which frequently changes its position, involving extremely difficult questions can only be decided satisfactorily in a civil Court and should not form the subject matter of a proceeding u/s 144. There is nothing in the said decision which would suggest that a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable in respect of char lands. There is nothing in the said decision which would suggest that a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable in respect of char lands. Moreover, in the present case, it is not the case of either party that proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure are not maintainable in respect of the disputed lands. 5. If there is no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace, the foundation for the jurisdiction of the Magistrate disappears. The Magistrate then cancels the preliminary order. This is provided by Section 145, Sub-section (5). Except for the reason that there is no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace as provided by Section 145(5), a proceeding initiated by a preliminary order u/s 145(1) must run its full course (See Mathuralal Vs. Bhanwarlal and Another. The learned Magistrate dropped the proceeding on the, erroneous assumption that the 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings in question are not maintainable. As the 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings are found to be maintainable, the only provision under which he could have dropped the proceedings is u/s 145, Sub-section (5). The learned Magistrate does not find that there is no longer any dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace and without such a finding the learned Magistrate acted illegally in dropping the proceedings. (See Mathuralal's case-supra). 6. In a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure the alternatives available to the Magistrate are: If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was in possession he is to make a final order in the manner provided by Sub-section (6). Provision for the two situations where the Magistrate is unable to decide which of the parties was in possession or where he is of the view that neither of them was in possession is made in Section 146 under which he may attach the subject of dispute until the determination of the rights of parties by a competent Court. (See Mathuralal's case-supra). 7. The order of the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings and vacating the attachment is not sustainable in law and therefore, I hereby set aside the same. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the Misc. Case is remanded to the learned Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. (See Mathuralal's case-supra). 7. The order of the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings and vacating the attachment is not sustainable in law and therefore, I hereby set aside the same. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the Misc. Case is remanded to the learned Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. The learned Counsel for both the parties have submitted that no notice need be issued to the parties and both the parties would be appearing on the 4th December, 1989 before the learned Executive Magistrate on which day he will be fixing a date of hearing. 8. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed