A. S. TRIPATHI, J. This Hebeas Corpus writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, Sanawwar son of Naththa, resident of village Hasangarh, P. S, Khurja Dehat, district Bulandshahr, praying for quasing the detention order, dated 25-3-1992 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. 2. The petitioner has been detained by an order dated 25-3-1992 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr detaining the petitioner under the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980; (hereinafter called the Act ). In the impugned detention order the District Magistrate has mentioned that he is satisfied that the activities of the petitioner have disturbed the public order in the locality. Three instances have been mentioned as grounds for detention. 3. The petitioner has challenged the detention on the grounds that the basis for detention does not amount to breach of maintenance of public order. It was simply a case of law and order, the alleged incident amounts to an offence committed against particular individual and does not relate to maintenance of public order, that the extraneous matters were placed by the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority relied on the same which vitiates the detention order, that the petitioner is an illiterate person and did not know how to read and write Hindi, the grounds for detention were not explained to him, that the family members of the petitioner were not informed about the place of his detention and that the State Government did not report the detention to the Central Government within seven days as provided under sub-section (5) of the Act. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, State of U. P. , Superintendant, District Jail, Bulandshahr. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, Union of India. 5. The respondents have denied the allegations made in the writ petition. According to the respondents the activities of the petitioner had created terror in the area which amounts to disturbance of public order. The contents of the detention order were explained to the petitioner. The detention order was sent to the Central Government in time. 5. The respondents have denied the allegations made in the writ petition. According to the respondents the activities of the petitioner had created terror in the area which amounts to disturbance of public order. The contents of the detention order were explained to the petitioner. The detention order was sent to the Central Government in time. The detention order was sent to the State Government with all the relevant documents on 25-3-1992 itself and after examining the matter in detail the State Government approved the order of detention on 31-3-1992. Approval of the detention order was reported to the Government of India on 2-4-1992 and was received by Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 3-4-1992 within seven days from the date of approval. 6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that the averments made in the counter-affidavits were not correct. 7. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner was that it was a case of an alleged offence against individuals and the same did not amount to disturbance of public order. At the most it could be said that it would be a case of law and order and, therefore, the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act are not attracted and the detention is accordingly bad in law. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 9. In the detention order three grounds have been mentioned as the basis for detention. The first ground was that on 20-2-1992 at about 9-30 a. m. one Hyder (deceased), Zafar, Shaukeen residents of vilage Hasangarh Police Station Khurja Dehat, district Bulandshahr were going to Khurja. In the forest of Islamabad near the graveyard the petitioner and his associates Mohd. Abbas, Fateh Mohammed alias Baddal, Chaman Khan, Sarfaraz Khan and Rajveer armed with fire-arms, lathis and sticks exhorted that the dispute of Patta of the land with Hyder be settled. Thereupon Hyder, Shaukeen and Zafar started running. On the exhortation of Rajveer the petitioner and his associates fired at Hyder and Zafar who were killed on the spot. Shaukeen, however, managed to run but was also killed immediately thereafter. 10. On account of this incident it is alleged that terror was created by (he petitioner in the locality. 11. Thereupon Hyder, Shaukeen and Zafar started running. On the exhortation of Rajveer the petitioner and his associates fired at Hyder and Zafar who were killed on the spot. Shaukeen, however, managed to run but was also killed immediately thereafter. 10. On account of this incident it is alleged that terror was created by (he petitioner in the locality. 11. The second ground for detention is said to be that on 25-2-1992 the petitioner threatened Mukhtiar for dire consequences if he deposed against the petitioner in the aforesaid incident and pending murder trial. 12. The third ground was that on 21-2-1992 when the Investigating Officer reached village Hasangarh for investigation of the first incident, he was reported that a terror was created in the locality and the villagers were leaving the village. 13. On these grounds it is alleged that the public order in the locality has been disturbed and it was found to be necessary to detain the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the Act. 14. We have noticed that other materials which were sent by the spon soring authority were not taken to be the basis for detention of the petitioner under the Act. The only ground for detention is the incident of 20-2-1992 in which on account of dispute of certain laud said to have been given on Patta, it is alleged that the petitioner and his associates had committed murder of Hyder and Zafar in the Jungle near graveyard. The remaining two grounds are in the same sequence of the first incident regarding threatening to the witnesses and fleeing of the villagers. Three grounds mentioned are in connection with the first incident of murder of Hyder and Zafar on 20-2-1990 in the jungle. 15. In our opinion there is sole incident of murder which took place in connection with a dispute regarding certain land said to have been given on Patta. This single incident does not amount to breach of maintenance of public order as is envisaged under Section 3 of the Act. It may be a case of law and order. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Ajay Dixit v. State of U. P. and others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 18. This single incident does not amount to breach of maintenance of public order as is envisaged under Section 3 of the Act. It may be a case of law and order. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Ajay Dixit v. State of U. P. and others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 18. It was held by Honble Supreme Court in this case that : "it is necessary in each case to examine the facts to determine, not the sufficiency of the grounds nor the truth of the grounds, but nature of the grounds alleged and see whether those are relevant or not for considering whether the dentention of the detenu is necessary for maintenance of public order. Thus where one of the grounds mentioned in the order of detention was old and stale and the other grounds were also unfortunate and the conduct of the alleged detenu was reprehensible and moreover in view of the allegation mentioned in the grounds, the grounds were not of such nature as to lead to any apprehension that the even tempo of the community would be endangered, the detention of the detenu under the provisions of Section 3 (2) was not justified. " 17. We have noticed earlier that the detention of the petitioner has been based on sole incident of murder of two persons in the Jungle. The alleged threatening to the witnesses in the same case and the allegation that villagers were fleeing do not amount to breach of maintenance of public order. It was individual act of the petitioner and his associates against individual and the same could not be said to be the grounds of such nature as to lead to any apprehension that the even tempo of the community at large would be endangered by this incident. 18. The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the Act upon the society. The test is whether it leads to disturabance of even tempo and current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of public order or does it affect merely an individual without affecting the tranquillity of the society. 19. The test is whether it leads to disturabance of even tempo and current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of public order or does it affect merely an individual without affecting the tranquillity of the society. 19. Applying this test we find that it was simply an individual act against individual in connection with a land in dispute and it did not disturb even tempo of society and did not amount to disturbance of public order. As such detention of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act is not justified. 20. The detaining authority has based the detention only on the above grounds and if any other grounds have been taken, into consideration as placed by the sponsoring authority it could be said to have taken into consideration the irrelevant and extraneous matters. 21. The other points raised by the petitioner regarding the fact that the detention order was not properly explained to the petitioner, place of detention of the petitioner was not informed to his relations and that the State Government did not report the matter to the Central Government within time have been properly controverted to the counter-affidavits of the respondents. 22. The petition, however, succeeds on the first ground itself that it was not a case of breach of maintenance of public order and the detention under Section 3 (2) of the Act was not justified. 23 We accordingly allow the petition and quash the impugned detention order dated 25-3-1992 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Petition allowed. .