JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Second party No. 2 in a proceeding u/s 144 Cr. P.C. is petitioner In this revision. 2. Officer-in-charge, Tangi Police-station submitted a report to learned Executive Magistrate in Non F. I. R. Case No. 68 of 1988 stating in the report that in: respect 1 acre 831 decimals of land over which crop was standing both parties are making claim for which there is apprehension of breach of peace and both parties ought to be restrained. On 18-11-1988, oh perusal of police report learned Magistrate 'was of the opinion that there is apprehension of serious breach of peace in "the locality likely to cause blood shed, rioting, murder and arson and there being sufficient ground, initiated" a' proceeding 'under Sec" 144, Cr. P. C. He restrained both the parties from entering upon the ' disputed land "and called upon them to how cause why the order would not be made absolute. In the said order, learned Executive Magistrate appointed Revenue Inspector,Nachuoi to be custodian of the standing crop. (sic) on the ground; that there was likelihood-of speedy natural-decay; of the same. On 24-11-1988,-..officec-inccharge, Tangi Police Station .reported that he- promolgated...the order, ..on 22 11-1988.. He made-;,a grievance that Revenue. Inspector, although, appointed as receiver of- the, land in dispute, did not turn up to harvest the paddy crop. From the report it is seen that Armed Police Reserve Force was posted in the village apprehending breach'of peace in the locality. On 25-11-;1988, Revenue Inspector reported that the disputed land had already been attached by the police oh 22-11-1933-On that ground he expressed his 'in ability to be custodian of the disputed land. On :5-12-;1988, petitioner showed cause but 1st party took adjournment. 'On 13L12-1988, at request of both petitioner and it party report Was called for from Revenue Inspector in respect of harvest of paddy and accounts if the same: had been harvested ; by: him. Before any report was received both parties were heard on 23-12-19815'tip'whicrTday first party show because and both parties filed some document On 26-12- 1988 Executive Magistrate dropped the proceeding- and directed Revenue Inspector to hand over paddy crop to 2nd- party N6; 2 3. Against order dated 26-12-1988; 1st party -filed a revision before learned Se session judge by order dated 5-1-1989; operation of impunged order was 'stayed. Against order dated 26-12-1988; 1st party -filed a revision before learned Se session judge by order dated 5-1-1989; operation of impunged order was 'stayed. Learned Sessions 'judge set aside the order of learned Magistrate and directed the sale of crops harvested and to deposit sale proceeds in treasury, which would be. paid to the successful party in appeal under the Orissa Land Reforms, Act. 4. Mr. Ganes was Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Executive Magistrate dropped the proceeding relying on the order in the O. L R, Act proceeding by the Revenue Officer that petitioner Is the tenant. Merely '"because an appeal 'was filed against the order, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have set aside the order Second contention- Mr Rath is that in absence of finding of continuance of apprehension of breach of peace, a State proceeding where' final order would have force of two months only ought not to be reviewed. Mr. Rath submitted that a proceeding being, pending in competent Court, no interference with order of the learned Executive Magistrate was called for. Lastly, Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned. Sessions judge not having interfered with the order dropping of the proceeding, there was no scope for giving direction that the value of the usufruct in his hand should be deposited in treasury to be handed over to the successful party 5. Mr. P. K. Misra learned counsel for the 1st party on the other hand submitted that in view of- pendency of the proceeding under Orissa Land Reforms Act in appeal, learned Sessions judge ought to have directed the proceeding to be converted to one u/s 145, Cr. P. C. and rightly set aside the order dropping the proceeding u/s 144, Cr. P. C. 6. fn this case, police-report clearly indicated that there is likelihood of breath of peace which may even extend to blood shed and murder. Dispute is in respect of possession of disputed land. First party has his title confirmed in civil litigation where second party No 2 is not a party. Second party No. 2 has been declared to be tenant u/s 36-A of O. L, R. Act and compensation has been fixed for payment by him to acquire occupancy right, This has been referred to in the police report itself. First party has his title confirmed in civil litigation where second party No 2 is not a party. Second party No. 2 has been declared to be tenant u/s 36-A of O. L, R. Act and compensation has been fixed for payment by him to acquire occupancy right, This has been referred to in the police report itself. Or perusal of the police report, learned Executive Magistrate initiated a pro- ceeding u/s 144 Cr. P. C When learned Magistrate relied on the police report which disclosed that there is dispute in respect of possession of the disputed land proper course for him was to initiate a proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P. C. and not a proceeding u/s 144 Cr. P. C. This was a fit case for attachment of .the disputed land u/s 146 Cr P. C. Even if a proceeding u/s 144 Cr. P. C. was initiated prohibiting both parties from entering upon the disputed land, he ought to have converted it to a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. 7. I find that even the Officer-in-charge and the Revenue Officer were under the impression that disputed land has been attached which is not correct. Learned Sessions Judge ought to have perused the entire record of the lower Court 8. Learned Sessions Judge stayed operation of the final order dropping the proceeding u/s 144 Cr. P. C. Thus, ail orders prior to dropping became operative and both parties now continue to remain restrained from going upon the disputed land. In view of my conclusion that this is a fit case where a proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P. C. ought to have been initiated, I am not inclined to interfere with the revisional order setting aside the final order u/s 144, Cr. P.C. dropping the proceeding. 9. Before initiation of a proceeding to keep peace, Executive Magistrates are required to apply their 'mind and should not act as rubber stamps to accept proposal of police officers in their reports. They should consider the provision which would be appropriate. even if proceeding has, been initiated under the provision, when for immediate prevention such power has been exercised after giving opportunity to parties the correct provision ought to be followed by converting the proceeding to one under the correct provision. 10. In this case, police report disclosed that dispute relates to possession of land. even if proceeding has, been initiated under the provision, when for immediate prevention such power has been exercised after giving opportunity to parties the correct provision ought to be followed by converting the proceeding to one under the correct provision. 10. In this case, police report disclosed that dispute relates to possession of land. Both parties relied upon documents of title as adjudicated by competent authorities. In the proceeding u/s 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act between the parties, petitioner was accepted to be tenant. This order is dated 4-11-1988. If this document would have been relied upon party against whom it is passed ought to have been restrained in the final order. However, in a dispute where armed police were required to be deployed, a temporary restraint order which would have longevity for a short term only is not the correct order. Hence, on that ground also a proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P. C. ought to have been initiated and land in dispute ought to have been kept under attachment to be released in favour of the person in whose favour the order of competent Court is passed. 11. When it was brought to the notice of the revisional Court that an appeal has been filed against the order u/s 36-A of O. L. R. Act, revisional Court was required to give direction to learned Magistrate to correct the proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P. C, since during pendency of appeal finality of the order of Revenue Officer is lost. This has been observed in para 9 of 41 (1975) C. L. T. 469 (BaJaji Padhy v Smt. Kamini Padhy), a decision of this Court where it is said : "Until the appeal is disposed of, the decree of the trial Court cannot be deemed to be final " In this view, learned Magistrate ought to have been directed to keep the proceeding pending after attachment of the disputed land u/s 16, Cr. P. C. till disposal of the appeal and finality of the proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act subject to interim order to be passed by that forum. 12. Mr. Rath has brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, which has,been followed by this Court in a, decision reported in Keshab Das and Others Vs. Bauribandhu Behera and Others, Mr. 12. Mr. Rath has brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, which has,been followed by this Court in a, decision reported in Keshab Das and Others Vs. Bauribandhu Behera and Others, Mr. Rath is also very fair to bring to the decision reported in 1988 (I) OLR 526, 66 (1988) C. L. T. 38 (B. Sirnanchalan v. Basanta Kumar, Bebarta and Ors.) where the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was also. taken into consideration. In there was O. L R. proceeding which was decided in favour of one ..party. the other party preferred the appeal, During pendency of the, appeal, the. proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P. C. was initiated. This Court relying upon the observation of the Supreme Court and the fact that there does not exist any breach of peace held that proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P. C. ought to be dropped. In 66 (19881 C. L.T. 38 (supra) this decision was distinguished and it was held that merely on, account of pendency. of a proceeding u/s 15,of, the O.. L.R. Act for protecting right of a tenant, .the proceeding Under Section.145 Cr. P C. ought not to be dropped. It was held that in a case where there is a proceeding in a competent Courts pending',' power under' Section 142 CrPC. can be exercised and interest of justice would be best served in case the proceeding under Sec'. 145 Cr. P. C. would wait the derision of the Revenue Officer unless it is held that there is no existence of before of peace. 13. On the facts of 'this case : I am inclined to hold' that the property should remain under ' attachment u/s 146 Cr. P. C after covering the proceeding to one ' u/s 145 Cr. P. C. Learned Magistrate 'should not however proceed further in the proceeding u/s 145 Cr P. C. so converted until finalisation of the proceeding u/s 36-A of the OLR Act which is pending in appeal now' In case, learned Magistrate issatisfied that there is no likelihood of breach of peace any further on materials being produced before him he 'may in his discretion exercise the power 'Under Section 145 Cr. P. C. for dropping the proceeding: 14. Mr. P. C. for dropping the proceeding: 14. Mr. Rath is correct in his submission that direction of the learned additional Sessions; judge to keep- -the Value of the crop in deposit to be handed over to the successful party in the pending appeal under the Orissa Land, R.-eform5-Act may be one-.under,Sec:,146 Cr,P-. C, it is not permissible in absence of pendency of a proceeding, Under Section, 143 Cr. P. C. Submission. of .Mr., Rath. Is .fully supposed by a .decision of. this, Court, reported in Manika Sahu and Others Vs. Dandapani Sahu and Others, ., Once, the learned .Sessions Judge accepted it, was his onerous duty to consider .the submission. of the 1st. party that the proceeding should be converted to one u/s 145 Cr. P. C, Learned Sessions judge having failed to .consider the same the revisional order is .also .not supportable. 15. Learned Sessions judge has quoted note from a law journal stating the same to be decision of High Court. I may explain that short notes are views of Editors of a journal after perusing a decision and are not by themselves decisions of this Court to have value of precedent. Decision of this Court is a precedent and not the head note given by an Editor. 16. In the result, revision is allowed; order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision as Well as of the learned Magistrate in the proceeding u/s 144 Cr. P. C are set aside and learned Magistrate is directed to convert the proceeding to one u/s 145 Cr. P. C and keep the disputed immovable property under attachment and continue the proceeding as observed in this decision. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed