This petition under section 401 read with section 397 CrPC is against the judgment and order dated 8.2.91 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Guwahati, declaring possession of the disputed land in a procee­ding under section 145 CrPC in favour of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 herein, who were first parties in the said proceeding. It may be stated that the present petitioner was not party to the said proceeding and the second party of the said proceeding has been impleaded as opposite party No. 3. 2. The case of the present petitioner is that she purchased the land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No. 2241 of KP Patta No. 23 of Natun Town Sarania, Mouza Ulubari, Guwahati by a registered sale deed dated 6.11.89 from the present opposite party No 3. According to the petitioner she was not aware of the present proceeding at the time of purchase as it was not disclosed by her vendor. It has been stated in the present petition that along with the land the present petitioner purchased one Assam type permanent structure. In view of the final order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, if the order remains it will cause prejudice to her inasmuch as she will be ousted from her property though she was a bonafide purchaser with delivery of possession. 3. The present proceeding was drawn up on 28.8.89 on the basis of a petition filed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The said petition has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit. It may be stated that the opposite natty No. 2 is the son of opposite party No. I and claimed that the land was purchased by two separate sale deeds dated 7.4.1959 and they are in possession. In the said petition before the learned Executive Magistrate for drawing up the proceeding under section 145 CrPC the following facts, which are relevant for the present purpose have been stated, viz. In the said petition before the learned Executive Magistrate for drawing up the proceeding under section 145 CrPC the following facts, which are relevant for the present purpose have been stated, viz. that the second party i.e. the opposite party No. 3 herein, the vendor of the present petitioner, was neighbour of the first party; that on 27.8.89 the second party has forcibly and illegally encroached over a portion of the land and started to dig out land with a view to erect RCC boundary wall, which was protested by the first party and his associates ; that there was every possibility of loss of life and properties between the parties which might cause breach of peace and public tranquility in the area and that if the proceeding was not drawn up there was every chance of breach of peace. It may be stated that in the said petition two Schedules have been given, viz. Schedule A and Schedule B which is the disputed land. On nerusal of these two Schedules it appears that in Schedule A two dag numbers have been given in respect of Patta No. 214 (Old)/' (New), but in Schedule B, no dag number has been given. In other words, in the petition, it has not been stated where actually the disputed land is strutted. 4. By order dated 28.8.89, the learned Executive Magistrate recorded that "I am, therefore, satisfied that there is every likelihood of breach of peace between the 1st party and 2nd party concerning the land as mentioned in the Schedule below .. .", and accordingly, proceeding was drawn up. It was further recorded that - "In view of the emergency the disputed land mentioned in the Schedule is hereby ordered to be attached under section 146 CrPC..." This was an exparte order. 5. I have heard Mr. M. A. Laskar learned Senior counsel and Mr. J. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the parties. It may be stated that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit and reply has also been filed by the present petitioner. From the counter affidavit, I find that possession of the land was handed over to the first party on strength of the impugned order with (he help of Ma Hstrate and Police on 23.2.1991 by demolishing structures on this land. From the counter affidavit, I find that possession of the land was handed over to the first party on strength of the impugned order with (he help of Ma Hstrate and Police on 23.2.1991 by demolishing structures on this land. It has also been stated in the said counter that from the date of taking over possession i e. 232.1991 till 3.3,1991 respondents No. 1 and 2 constructed Assam type ekchali house consisting of two rooms and nephew of the opposite party No. 1 was residing therein. It has further been stated that on ?.?.91 at about 3 PM the present petitioner and her husband along with 20 other persons forcibly entered into the house and dispossessed the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. So the admitted position as on today is that the present petitioner Is in posse­ssion of the disputed land and also the house standing therein. 6. Before I proceed to examine the impugned judgment, I may state that in the initial order of drawing up of the proceeding under section 145 CrPC the learned Executive Magistrate recorded that -"there is likelihood of breach of peace between the first party and secondary concerning the land". This Court has repeatedly held that in private dispute a proceeding under section 145 CrPC cannot be drawn up. (Sre Maqbal Hussain vs. Syadur Rahman, (1986) 2 GLR 167 and (Mangturam Sanganeria vs Kartik Bhowmick, (1986) 2 GLR 177).The above two decisions was also considered subsequently by this Court in Haripada Kar vs. Piyush Bhowal, (1987) 2 GLR 198 and this Court held that-'Section 145 requires that Magistrate mist be-satisfied that before initiation ;of proceeding that a dispute regarding any land of boundaries thereof exists and that such dispute is likely to cause a ''breach of the peace." In this decision the earlier decisions were clarified stating that dispute between two private parties must be of such a nature that it tends to disturb the public order and tranquility in the locality In this decision the Court stated that in the earlier two decisions the meaning of 'breach' of the peace" was explained and as such there is no inconsistency between the decision and the earlier two decisions 7. It is unfortunate that instead of clear direction by this Court it has come to the notice of this Court that incomplete disregard to the law laid down, proceeding under section 145 CrPC is drawn up even when there is a dispute between two parties without recording the satisfaction of the Court that such dispute is likely to cause 'breach of the peace' while initially proceeding under section 145 CrPC is drawn up exparte Magistrate has to be very careful in complying this provision of law, otherwise, there is every likelihood that the Court may be misled aid the power may be' mis-used The initial order also suffers from another defect inasmuch as the learned Court attached the land in view of the emergency, but has not disclosed what was the emergency. It was necessary to state this particular case the proceeding was drawn up without calling for a police report, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the initial order is bad in law and void ab initio and as such subsequent proceeding including the final order cannot stand. 8. In the petition for drawing up the proceeding under section 145 CrPC in paragraph 3 it has been categorically stated that the second party (opposite party No.3 herein) started to dig out the land with a view to erect RCC boundary wall. In other words, this petition alleged boundary dispute. But in the final order the learned Executive Magistrate declered possession of the first party in respect of the entire land measuring 1 katha 11 lechas. In the final order the Court directed delivery of possession of the land to the first party, the learned Court in the Schedule at ached to the final order gave one patta number and two dag numbers. It is not clear where from the learned Court got the dag numbers as in the Schedule B to the original petition, which described the disputed land, no dag manners were stated. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, the learned Court took note of the fact that the second party in the said proceeding started digging out trenches with a view to erect RCC boundary wall. In other words, the learned Court noted that the dispute ukase in respect of boundary only,, which is also be the case of the first party. On perusal of the impugned judgment, the learned Court took note of the fact that the second party in the said proceeding started digging out trenches with a view to erect RCC boundary wall. In other words, the learned Court noted that the dispute ukase in respect of boundary only,, which is also be the case of the first party. The learned Court .also, noted regarding the .earlier civil suit and the proceeding under section 145 CrPC, but rejected the facts as the second party in the said proceeding old. not subsequently take steps, In my opinion there was error of law, inasmuch as, if there was a civil dispute and for that matter previous proceeding under section 145 CrPC, the learned Magistrate could have called f or the record and that apart in view of the civil suit the parties could have been referred to the civil Court. The impugned judgment' suffers another legal defect viz. there is no finding of the learned Court regarding the date of alleged dis-possession of the first party. 10. M. laskar has alleged that the second party in the said proceed­ing; and thereafter the present petitioner was occupying the Assam type house on the disputed land. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have drawn my attention to the report of the police dated 12.9.89, which has been annexed as Annexure 4B,to the counter affidavit and has urged that this report demolishes the, case of the second party in the proceeding ; that t ere was an Assam type house. On perusal of the said report, I do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Sarma. 11. Mr. Sarma is trying to impress this Court that after the land was attached, the second party in the said proceeding in violation of the attach­ment order constructed the structure on the suit land. Before the learned trial Court the first party of the said, proceeding filed a petition alleging violation and a copy of the said petition has annexed as Annexure 4A to the counter affidavit. In the said petition, there is absolutely on statement that the second party of the said proceeding and for that matter the petitioner herein constructed any house on the said suit land. In the said petition, there is absolutely on statement that the second party of the said proceeding and for that matter the petitioner herein constructed any house on the said suit land. In fact, what was stated in the said petition was that the second party of the said proceeding forcibly erected boundary wall on the western boundary of the disputed land so the submission of Mr. Sarma has no force. 12. From the copy of the police report dated 14.2.91 vide Annexure 8 to the counter, it appears that there was an Assam type CI sheet roofed half walled house, two latrines, one structure of RCC house where 11 Nos. of RCC post erected and a pucha boundary wall in 4 feet in high around the plot of land and a family was residing in Assam type house. Therefore, the police prayed for presence of Magistrate, for execution of the final order passed in the proceeding. 13. In the counter filed by the opposite parties No.1 and 2, it has been stated that during the period in which the land was in possession of the first party in the said proceeding, i.e between 23.2.91 and 3.3.91, the petitioner of the sail proceedings constructed one Assam type ekchali house consisting of two rooms. This fact 'is not supported by the police report as stated above, 14. Mr. Sarma was urged that the plea of the present petitioner that she has no knowledge about 145 CrPC proceeding is, not legally tenable inasmuch as the order was served by affixing a copy of the order on the suit land as required under sub-section (60 of 145 CrPC. In this connection, Mr. Srma has placed reliance in a decision of Orissa High Court in Mst. Alarkshi & others vs. Mst Ujala Bibi & others, AIR 1966 Orissa 49. It is of at all necessary to consider this point in view of the contrary plea taken by the opposite parties No. I aid 2 in their counter, viz it has been pleaded that the present petitioner has no locus-standi, whereas on the other hand, Mr. Sarma has urged that in view of the above sub-section (6) of section 145 Cr PC it is to be deemed that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceeding. Mr. Sarma has urged that in view of the above sub-section (6) of section 145 Cr PC it is to be deemed that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceeding. Mr. Sarma has also urged that the final order passed in the said proceeding under section 145 CrPC is also bind the petitioner. If it binds the petitioner, the petitioner has definitely locus standi to file the present petition. 15. According to Mr. Sarma as the hind was purchased by the petitioner when it was under attachment, the sale is invalid. I do not want to express anything in view of the final order, which I propose to pass. 16. Regarding oral prayer of Mr.Sarma for invoking inherent power of this Court to put back opposite parties No. 1 and 2 into possession, I am afraid, it cannot be accepted as in my opinion, the entire proceeding is bad in law. 17. Finally, I am of the opinion that this is a private dispute between two party's regarding the suit land more particularly the boundary of the land of the parties and civil Court is the appropriate Court for deciding the matter. The opposite parties No. l and 2 may approach the civil Court, if so advised, for proper adjudication of the matter. 18. For what has been stated above, I hold that the entire proceeding including the initial order of drawing up of the proceeding under section 145 CrPC and final order passed were illegal and not in accordance with the law and liable to be set aside, which I hereby do. The petitioner who is admittedly in possession of the land shall continue to remain in possession, till the matter is decided by the civil Court, if the second party approaches such Court. In the result, the petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute.