JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned public prosecutor for the state and learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 Nobody appeared on behalf of non- petitioner No. 3 and 4. 2. This Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 30th March, 1990 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali in Criminal misc. case No. 9/90 State v. Bhaga and others under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The facts of the case may be summarised as below : 4. On 30th March, 1990 Tehsildar cum the Administrator, Municipal Board Bali submitted a complaint in writing before learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali alleging there in that certain lands described in Para No. 1 of the complaint was entered in the name of Deity Shri Jaikalji Maharaj and the temple of Shri Jaikalji Maharaj was under the management of Bhaga who was the Pujari. In Vikram Samvat 2031-34 the lands belonging to the temple of Shri Jaikalji Maharaj were entered in the Jamabandi Khewat Khatoni as Khatedari of Shri Bhaga who is the petitioner in this case. It was further stated in the complaint that lands bearing Khasara Nos. 465 and 465/2, measuring 2.06 bhigas were entered in the record as Barani lands and in the map they were show as adjacent to the river, Settlement Department made certain changes in the map. It was also stated in the complaint that the deity was the owner of the land and the deity was worshipped by all the inhabitants of the village and that on this land there was a way leading to cremation ground and a part of the land was used for animals and worship by saints. It was further stated in the complaint that on behalf of party No. 2 Poona Ram submitted an application on 4th June, 1989 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bali and prayed that permission for construction of a boundary wall be given and the Sub-Divisional Officer. Bali granted permission on 12th February 1990 and after obtaining the permission on 12th February, 1990 a boundary wall was constructed on 23rd February, 1990 in hot haste within a period of 24 hours without getting the measurement of the land done and as a consequence land enclosed within the boundary wall became disputed land. Bali granted permission on 12th February 1990 and after obtaining the permission on 12th February, 1990 a boundary wall was constructed on 23rd February, 1990 in hot haste within a period of 24 hours without getting the measurement of the land done and as a consequence land enclosed within the boundary wall became disputed land. If: was also stated in the complaint that where as party No. 1 was claiming that the land (enclosed by the boundary wall) was meant for public purposes, and party No. 2 was taking shelter behind the entries of the Revenue Record, it was therefore, prayed in the complaint that proceeding be initiated under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the non-applicants be directed to produce their evidence and during the enquiry the property should be attached. 5. On receiving the aforesaid complaint the Sub-Divisional Magistrate gave in order that case be registered and the property be attached and appointed Naib Tehsildar of Bali as the Receiver of the property and directed that the case be listed on 18th May, 1990. It appear that after writing the aforesaid order a detailed order was also written on the order-sheet. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 30th March, 1990 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bali was without jurisdiction because there was no real dispute about the possession of the property and the property not only belonged to the deity according to the Revenge Record, it was also in possession of the deity and the land had already been enclosed by a boundary wall which was constructed after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason to doubt that the deity was in possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, there was absolutely no reason for initiation of proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for appointment of the Receiver under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure and that, if the Administrator of the Municipal Board wanted any correction in the Revenue Record the proper course was to take appropriate steps for correction in the entries already existing in the record. On the basis of above arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initiation of proceeding by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, amounts to abuse the process of the Court because he has exercised the powers under Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code without satisfying himself whether the conditions necessary for involving the powers under sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure code were present. It is therefore, prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated by the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate. Bali including the order of appointment of the Receiver be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has opposed this petition and submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code because he is merely a "Pujari" of the temple and has been wrongly mentioned as Khatedar of land in the Revenue Record. In the alternative it is submitted by the counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 that if the petitioner has any grievance the proper course for him is to approach the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bali with a prayer to implead him as a party and contest the application filed by the non- petitioner No.2 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali. It is also submitted by the counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 that the detailed order which was passed on the order-sheet proves that the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bali applied his mind and arrived at the conclusion that there was a bonafide dispute about the possession of the land and peace was likely to endanger if Receiver was not appointed. 8. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate shows in his order at one place he has mentioned that the application filed by non-petitioner No.2 was supported by an affidavit. When the original record of the lower Court was perused it was found that there was no affidavit worth the name to support the application made by non-petitioner No.2 the learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 has rightly conceded that the slip on which verification has been done does not amount to an affidavit. 9. When the original record of the lower Court was perused it was found that there was no affidavit worth the name to support the application made by non-petitioner No.2 the learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 has rightly conceded that the slip on which verification has been done does not amount to an affidavit. 9. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that petitioner Bhaga Ram was entered as a Khatedar of the land and that he had constructed a wall enclosing the lands after obtaining the permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali. Bhaga Ram was, therefore, in possession of the land and there is nothing to prove that there was many dispute about the possession of the land, There is also no evidence to show that there was any apprehension of breach of peace. It is also not indicated by any paper on record that any party approached the Revenue Authorities for correction of entries in the Revenue Record on the ground that the petitioner was not in possession of the land and that somebody else was in the possession of the land and entries in the Revenue Record was wrong. 10. In these circumstance, it muse be said that there was absolutely no basic for initiating the proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for appointment of the receiver under section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The initiation of proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the passing of order under section 146 of the Criminal Procedure code clearly amounts to abuse the process of the court and therefore, it is a fit case in which the proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali should be quashed. I, therefore, quash the order dated 30th March, 1990 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bali.> Petition allowed. *******