Judgment M. B. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge to the order dated 21st April 1989 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar is only on the ground that the learned Judge has wrongly observed that the learned Magistrate has not recorded his own satisfaction on the police report and only on the police report no case of emergency was made out and subject of dispute could not have been attached. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 21st April 1989 had allowed the revision petition filed before him by the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 13 against the petitioner, against the order dated 11th August 1983 of the learned Executive Magistrate attaching the subject of dispute treating the case as one of emergency. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein shall be described as party No. 1 and the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 13 as party No. 2. Party No. 1 filed an application u/s 145, Cr. P. C. against Party No. 2 wherein it was stated that in accordance with the custom in the caste to which he belongs, he was adopted by Jeevaram Sb Mangla Megha, resident of Balaran and his wife on Miti Bhadwa Badi 5 Sanwat 2038 and all the necessary ceremonies of adoption took place and since then he and his father were in possession of the guwadit. It was stated that party No. 2 has no connection whatsoever with the immovable property in dispute and were never in possession but they made an attempt to forcibly enter into the possession of the guwadi, on 2nd August 1987. It was stated that there was apprehension of breach of peace in respect of the guwadit by party No. 2. The earned Executive Magistrate on the aforesaid complaint referred the matter to the S. H. O. , Laxmangarh for enquiry and the S. H. O. after inquiry filed a report that there was a dispute in aspect of possession of guwadi in between the parties and serious incident may take place at any moment and breach of peace may take place. The learned Magistrate placed reliance on the police port and made an order u/s 145 which order is down as preliminary order and treating the case one of emergency, he attached the subject in dispute. The learned Magistrate placed reliance on the police port and made an order u/s 145 which order is down as preliminary order and treating the case one of emergency, he attached the subject in dispute. A revision petition was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who allowed revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. ( 3 ) A perusal of the order of the learned additional Sessions Judge will show that it does appear from the order of the learned Magistrate as to in what manner there was apprehension of breach of peace. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge also said that while making the preliminary order u/s 145, Cr. P. C. , the learned Magistrate should have reached to a conclusion that there was an apprehension of breach of peace in respect of possession of immovable property and mere reference to the police report is not sufficient. ( 4 ) A look at Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. will show that the satisfaction of the Magistrate that dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, may be either from, the report of the police officer or upon other information before making an order is necessary. A look at the order dated 11th August 1987 of the learned Magistrate will show that he has referred to the complaint filed before him u/s 145, Cr. P. C. by party No. 1 against party No. 2 and has also said that on receipt of the complaint he had referred the matter to the S. H. O. , Laxmangarh for making an enquiry and the S. H. O. made an enquiry in the matter, submitted his report and the S. H. O. in his report has reported that there could be a serious incident in respect of the possession of the guwadi at any moment and there could be breach of peace. It is also mentioned in the order dated 11th August 1987 that he has recorded his satisfaction but the words used are HUM PRARTHNA PATRA PRARTHI VA REPORT S. H. O. SE SANTUSHTHA HEIN. It will therefore, be clear that the satisfaction was recorded by the learned Magistrate on the police report and it had jurisdiction to do so as appears from the bare reading of Sec. 145, Cr. It will therefore, be clear that the satisfaction was recorded by the learned Magistrate on the police report and it had jurisdiction to do so as appears from the bare reading of Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the case of Gurdev Singh v. Mastan Singh. A look at the aforesaid judgment will show that all that has been stated is that the preliminary order u/s 145 (1) shall be passed by the Magistrate stating in it the grounds of his satisfaction about the existence of dispute concerning the possession of immovable property which was likely to cause breach of peace. It has also been said that where the Magistrate passed the order relying only in the police report, without applying his mind, the order was held, liable to be set aside. It appears that a preliminary order could not be passed on the police report without applying the mind and without recording the satisfaction. It cannot be said that there has been no application of mind. By referring the police report and the information which was filed before him by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate recorded the satisfaction u/s 145 (1), Cr. P. C. Therefore, the above authority which has been relied upon by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge is not applicable. The other case which has been relied upon by the learned Judge is Katanur Doddappa v. State of Karnataka and another, wherein it has been stated that as per Sec. 145 (1) it is the duty of the Magistrate to consider the report of the police officer or other information available to him and be satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace does exist concerning any property within his local jurisdiction and thereafter state the grounds of his being so satisfied. In the Order which was under consideration before the learned Magistrate u/s 145, Cr. P. C it was merely narrated that the police officer had registered a case u/s 145, Cr. P. C. and had reported the facts to him and, therefore, he called upon the parties to appear before him on certain date and to produce an the records. After passing the order the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass an order u/s 145 (1), Cr. P. C. and had reported the facts to him and, therefore, he called upon the parties to appear before him on certain date and to produce an the records. After passing the order the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass an order u/s 145 (1), Cr. P. C. In view of the fact that no satisfaction is required by the learned Magistrate, the revision petition was allowed. ( 5 ) IN my opinion, none of the cases are applicable in the instant case. The learned Magistrate not only referred to the information which was lodged before him by the petitioner, discussed it, also referred to the police report which report was submitted after inquiry made under the orders of the court and also said that he is satisfied from them and only then the preliminary order was made. ( 6 ) THE law is settled that the satisfaction u/s 145, Cr. P. C. to be of the Magistrate and the court of revision will not substitute its own satisfaction for that of the Magistrate. A court of revision therefore, could not have in the facts of the case, on the material on record allowed the revision petition and could not have set aside the preliminary order as well as the order of attachment. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I hereby allow the revision petition, set aside the judgment dated 21st April 1989 of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Sikar and restore that of the Magistrate dated 11th August 1987. Revision allowed.