Honble KOCHHAR, J. – The facts, giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (``the Code), are as under :– (2). The land, situated on the river-bed of River Banas, measuring 14 bighas in Khasra No. 163 of Village Lehan, in District - Tonk, (the land in dispute), was allotted in favour of the petitioners by the authorities concerned and on account thereof, the residents of Village Lehan, felt agitated. The petitioners cultivated the land and sowed wheat crop in the land in dispute and thereupon, there was resentment in the residents of the said village. On 7th February, 1994, the petitioners came with their supporters, to the land in dispute and since there was an apprehension of breach of peace, the police authorities of Police Station Maind was, which was having jurisdiction in respect of the land in dispute, initiated proceedings under Sections 107/116 of the Code, against the petitioners. However, prior thereto, on 30th September, 1993, proceedings under the above-said, sections of the Code, were initiated by the same police station, against the petitioners. Since there was dispute in regard to the right of allotment of the land in dispute, the report was submitted to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk (``the SDM), who initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code and thereafter, attached the land in dispute and appointed the SHO, Police Station - Maindwas, as the Receiver thereof. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the order by filing a revision petition, which was registered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 2/1994, in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, who, vide the order dated 28th April, 1994, observed that before passing the order, proper procedure had not been followed by the learned SDM and consequently, he accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the learned SDM, for being decided in accordance with law. On the second day itself, i.e., on 29th April, 1994, the learned SDM passed the impugned order, re-attaching the land in dispute and re-appointing the SHO of Police Station- Maindwas, as the Receiver thereof. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. (4). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. (4). It is not disputed before me that the land in dispute had been allotted by the competent authority, to the petitioners, who, on the basis of the allotment-letter, had ploughed the field and had sowed wheat crop therein. (5). The contention of Shri HC Ganeshia, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 6, is that the order of allotment, made in favour of the petitioners, was under challenge before the Collector, who ultimately cancelled it on 1st March, 1994 and thereupon, the petitioners had taken up the matter to the Revenue Board, who had stayed the order, cancelling their allotment in respect of the land in dispute. It is further contended by Shri Ganeshia that the land in dispute was earlier allotted to the residents of Village Lehan and the same had been wrongfully and by fraudulent means got allotted by the petitioners in their favour and that as a result thereof, the residents of the village, were agitated and there was resentment amongst them and because the petitioners had insisted on keeping the possession of the land in dispute with them, there was apprehension of breach of peace and the learned SDM rightly passed the impugned order and appointed the SHO of Po- lice Station Maindwas, as the Receiver of the land in dispute. (6). As noted above, the land in dispute belongs to the Government and had been allotted by the appropriate authority, to the petitioners, who, in terms of the allotment order, had ploughed the same and had sowed wheat crop. Admittedly, the order of cancellation, which was stayed by the Board of Revenue, was passed on 1st March, 1994, i.e., after the date of ploughing of the field. The petitioners thus came in possession of the land in dispute, which is a Government land, under an order, passed by the appropriate authority. Admittedly, the order of cancellation, which was stayed by the Board of Revenue, was passed on 1st March, 1994, i.e., after the date of ploughing of the field. The petitioners thus came in possession of the land in dispute, which is a Government land, under an order, passed by the appropriate authority. If the allotment in favour of the petitioners, was wrongful or the said order had been obtained by them fraudulently or against the rules, proper remedy for the respondents, was to agitate the matter be- fore the competent authority and as is being stated at the Bar, the matter has been pending before the Board of Revenue. Even if ultimately, the cancellation order is upheld by the Board of Revenue, the only course would be that the authority concerned would take back the possession of the land in dispute from the petitioners but the respondents, i.e., the residents of Village Lehan, have no right to take forceful possession from the petitioners, either before the matter is decided against the petitioners or after that. Only if the order cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioners is ultimately upheld and thereafter the land is allotted to the respondents that they can take possession thereof in terms of the allotment in their favour and in accordance with law. It is not understandable as to how instead of protecting the possession of the petitioners, the learned SDM took proceedings under Section 145 of the Code, in respect of the same land, which had been allotted to the petitioners by the Government itself. The dispute, if any, was clear, i.e., that the respondents did not want the petitioners to take the benefit of the land, allotted to them and the trouble, if any, was created by the respondents, i.e., the residents of the village concerned. In such circumstances, the proceedings, if any, could have been initiated for protecting the possession of the petitioners and not for taking away the possession from them, by way of attachment of the land or otherwise. The exercise of the powers under Section 145 of the Code, by the learned SDM, in the present case, shows that he did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and passed the impugned order, which is patently without jurisdiction. (7). The exercise of the powers under Section 145 of the Code, by the learned SDM, in the present case, shows that he did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and passed the impugned order, which is patently without jurisdiction. (7). For the above-said reasons, I accept this petition and quash the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code, in respect of the land in dispute and pending before the learned SDM, Tonk. (8). The petition stands disposed of accordingly.