Order.- On a petition filed by Mucheli Narasimha Reddy, as sole petitioner, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandragiri passed an order under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code on 17th September, 1963 in which he noted the complainant as ‘A’ party and the respondents cited in the petitions as ‘B’ party. The learned Magistrate called on the parties to put in statements regarding their possession as contemplated in section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. The parties accordingly put in their claims. Ultimately the First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, passed a final order on 3rd April, 1964, under section 145(6), Criminal Procedure Code in M.C.No. 271 of 1963 declaring the ‘A’ party to be in possession of the schedule land and directing the ‘B’ party not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the ‘A’ party as mentioned in that sub-section. The ‘B’ party thereupon filed Criminal R.P.No. 2 of 1964 before the Sessions Court, Chittoor to make a reference to the High Court to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dismissed that petition. Thereupon, the ‘B’ party filed this revision in this Court. The dispute land consists of Survey Nos. 73/3 and 74 in Chiguruvada, Uttarapu Khandriga. ‘A’ party is a resident of South Chiguruvada, Dakshinapu Khandriga. The ‘B’ party are residents of Kottur village, hamlet of Uttarapu Khandriga. ‘A’ party contended in his written statement as follows. The land originally belonged to one Seshachalam Dikshitulu. He (A party) took an agreement of sale dated 1st February, 1953, from the owner and was in possession from that time. Subsequently, he obtained a registered sale deed dated 22nd August, 1961. He was enjoying the land and the trees on it. He cut some trees in this land to the knowledge of the ‘B’ party and removed some of the smaller branches Later on 5th August, 1963, when he wanted to remove the trunks of those felled trees, the ‘B’ party objected and obstructed. The ‘B’ party had no right or interest in the properties. The ‘A’ party has been in exclusive possession of the land. Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 9 of the ‘B’ party filed a statement to the following effect. The land given in the schedule of the petition has been village site from time immemorial. The ‘B’ party had no right or interest in the properties. The ‘A’ party has been in exclusive possession of the land. Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 9 of the ‘B’ party filed a statement to the following effect. The land given in the schedule of the petition has been village site from time immemorial. The residents of Kottur village and Kottur Harijanwada have been enjoying the land in question as common village site for common purposes and for easing themselves as a public latrine. ‘A’ party has never been in possession and enjoyment of the site. The villagers are actually in physical possession and enjoyment of the site. Each side filed a large number of affidavits. ‘A’ party marked Exhibits P-1 to P-28 on his side and the ‘B’ party marked Exhibit B-1 to Exhibit B-7 on their side. The learned Magistrate carefully discussed the documentary evidence with reference to the contentions of the parties. But, as regards the affidavits, he stated as follows: "Both parties had filed a large number of affidavits in support of their respective claim. The village of Chiguruvada Uttarapu Kandriga Was an inam village and it was taken over by the Government. It is common experience that in inam villages there is a party of the inamdars and a party of the tenants. Each party will have its own strength and it is easy for each party to procure any number of affidavits. It is not safe to rely upon these affidavits, which cannot be treated on a par with the testimony which is subjected to cross-examination. As I have already pointed out the very contention of the ‘B’ party respondents that the petition schedule land is Gramanatham has been disproved and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was in the common enjoyment of the villagers. It had been amply proved that the petition schedule land was tope and was in possession and enjoyment of the vendors of the ‘A’ party respondent." The learned Magistrate placed particular reliance on Exhibit P-28 which is an Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta for the dispute lands in favour of the ‘A’ party. It had been amply proved that the petition schedule land was tope and was in possession and enjoyment of the vendors of the ‘A’ party respondent." The learned Magistrate placed particular reliance on Exhibit P-28 which is an Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta for the dispute lands in favour of the ‘A’ party. Regarding this document, paragraph 12 of his Order reads thus: "It is in evidence that the village of Chinguruvada Uttarapu Khandriga was taken over by the Government on 31st July, 1961 and the Assistant Settlement Officer of Chittoor had sua motu taken up an enquiry and he decided that the ‘A’ party respondent is entitled to a patta in respect of the lands-bearing the present S. No. 331/3 and 332/1. Exhibit P-28 is the copy of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The Schedule appended to the same shows that the present S.No. 332/1 is old S. No. 74. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting a patta to the ‘A’ party respondent in respect of the petition schedule land is an important document which must be considered by the Magistrate in a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. I am of the opinion that it would not be wise to question the validity of the patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer in a proceeding like this." In the order in revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to the evidence and held as follows: "The only question involved in the revision is one of appreciation of evidence which, in my view, is not grossly improper as to warrant submission of a report by this Court to High Court. I do not find any merit in the revision petition and accordingly I dismiss it." Regarding a contention which had been urged before him that the affidavits have not been considered by the learned Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in para. 13 of his judgment as follows: "The next comment........in the Revision Petition is that the learned Magistrate has refrained from considering the affidavits filed in the case........and, therefore, the order is improper. It must be noted that it is not as if the Magistrate has not looked into the affidavits at all and not adverted to them. He adverts to this aspect in paragraph 13 of the order. It must be noted that it is not as if the Magistrate has not looked into the affidavits at all and not adverted to them. He adverts to this aspect in paragraph 13 of the order. He states that both parties have filed a. large number of affidavits and that, in his view, it is not safe to rely upon them, that on the evidence on record there was sufficient material for him to show that the land was not gramanatham in the possession of all the villagers but was an arable and cultivable land with trees on it and in possession of the ‘A’ party respondent. It is on this view that he places (no reliance) on the affidavits. It is not as if he has not looked into them at all. If the affidavits are totally ignored in the sense that they were not looked into at all as Will be the inference when a trial Court does not refer to them at all then the comment of the learned Counsel, that the material placed before the Court was not looked into at all and therefore the order is infirm, is sustainable. It is not so in the facts of the case where the Magistrate prefers other evidence in the case to that afforded by the affidavits." The main contention raised before me by Shri B. Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners ‘ B ‘ party, is that the learned Magistrate has erred in not referring to the contentions of the affidavits and in not considering their evidentiary value. Section 145 (1) runs as follows: "Whenever............Magistrate of the first class is satisfied from a police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land........he shall make an order in writing............requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court..........and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the facts of actual possession of the subject of dispute and further requiring them to put in such documents or to adduce, by putting in affidavits, the evidence of such persons, as they rely upon in support of such claims." Sub-section (4) runs thus: "The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits of the claims of any of such parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements, documents and affidavits, if any, so put in, hear the parties and conclude the inquiry, as far as may be practicable, within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties before him and, impossible, decide the question whether any and which of the parties was at date of the order before mentioned in such possession of the said subject: Provided that the Magistrate may, if he so thinks fit, summon and examine any person whose affidavit has been put in as to the facts contained therein. " In Jamilur Rahman v. Abdul Azia1, the Patna High Court observed as follows (at page 242): "The learned Magistrate is entirely wrong, however in thinking that it is not necessary even to consider the affidavits which now take the place of oral evidence given by witnesses. Sometimes, I find that Magistrates dispose of all the affidavits on behalf of both the parties merely by saying that they are oath against oath; even that is improper. The Magistrate should consider the affidavit of each deponent and should give his reasons for accepting or not accepting it." In Rudra Singh v. Bimla Debi2, it was observed as follows (at page 506): "He (Magistrate) has not considered the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties at all. The learned Advocate appearing for the first party has stated that some of the documents filed on behalf of the first party have also not been considered..................................the Magistrates should remember that those affidavits must be considered because they take the place of the ora-evidence. The learned Advocate appearing for the first party has stated that some of the documents filed on behalf of the first party have also not been considered..................................the Magistrates should remember that those affidavits must be considered because they take the place of the ora-evidence. They should not be brushed aside by saying that there is oath against oath or that the affidavits cannot displace the weight of the documentary evidence. The Magistrate should consider the affidavits in the same way in which oral evidence is considered. They should give reasons for rejecting the statements made in each affidavit. As the learned Magistrate has not, in this case, considered the entire documentary evidence and as he has not considered the affidavits, his order cannot be Upheld." In Arjun Singh v. Singeshwar3, it was observed as follows (at page 513): "At present in deciding a proceeding under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, the parties have been permitted to adduce evidence, by means of affidavits and affidavits cannot be ignored in the manner as has been done by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He had to consider the affidavits and give reasons for accepting the affidavits of one or the other party. He cannot ignore the affidavits and base his finding of possession on documents or other circumstances. To that extent, his judgment is entirely vitiated.............." It is clear from the above decisions of the Patna High Court, with which I respectfully agree, that affidavits form very important piece of evidence which have to be considered for arriving at a finding of possession in a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, because they take the place of oral evidence given by witnesses. The Magistrate has to consider the affidavits of both sides and give reasons for accepting or rejecting the statements made in each of them. In this case, the learned Magistrate has not considered or referred to the details of the contents of the various affidavits. He has not even stated as to who were the persons that gave affidavits and whether they were in a position to have personal knowledge and make reliable statements about them. The reason given by the learned Magistrate for not considering the affidavits is not at all adequate. He has not even stated as to who were the persons that gave affidavits and whether they were in a position to have personal knowledge and make reliable statements about them. The reason given by the learned Magistrate for not considering the affidavits is not at all adequate. The ground given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for holding hat the order of the learned Magistrate is not vitiated by non-consideration of the affidavits is not satisfactory or convincing. The question is what has to be done in the present case. The learned Advocate for the ‘A’ party respondent contends that there is strong documentary evidence on the side of ‘A’ party and that, in particular, there is a patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer. He also says that the grant of a patta has become final. Such a patta, as an evidence of possession, is only one of the items to be considered in proving possession under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. It cannot be treated as conclusive evidence in such a way as to completely shut out the other evidence so as to make it unnecessary to consider the affidavits which were filed on both sides. The patta issued is a document. If the patta is treated as a document of title, or as right to possess the property, then it cannot be treated as conclusive evidence for sub-section (4) to section 145, Criminal Procedure Code requires that the Magistrate shall decide without reference to the merits or the claims of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute. I find that the learned Magistrate has contravened the mandatory provisions of sub-section (4) to section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and that, therefore, his proceedings are vitiated, in spite of the fact that there is documentary evidence on the side of the ‘A’ party in the form of a patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The learned Advocate for the ‘A’ party points out that the final order of the learned Magistrate was passed on 3rd April, 1964 and that more than two years have elapsed from then. As the proceedings of the learned Magistrate are vitiated by an important defect namely, failure to consider very material evidence of a large volume in the form of affidavits, I have to interfere in revision and s;t aside the order. As the proceedings of the learned Magistrate are vitiated by an important defect namely, failure to consider very material evidence of a large volume in the form of affidavits, I have to interfere in revision and s;t aside the order. The learned Advocate for the ‘B’ party has also raised another contention that the proceedings came under section 147, Criminal Procedure Code and that the learned Magistrate acted wrongly in disposing of the proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code instead of under section 147, Criminal Procedure Code. This contention has not been raised at any stage up to his adducing arguments. It was not raised in the written statement of the ‘B’ party or in the grounds of revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge or even in the grounds of revision in this Court. Apart from this, the ‘B’ party, in its statement, has raised a contention of possession as follows: “The respondents herein beg to submit that there was no breach of peace much less imminent breach of peace in regard to the actual physical possession of the village site, viz., the land in question. The villagers are in actual possession and enjoyment of the land in question. The ‘A’ party respondent cannot claim either exclusive possession of the site in question or even the right to exclusive possession of the site in question.” From the contents of the statements of the ‘B’ party as well as the ‘A’ party, it is obvious that both sides were agreed that the dispute land was under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Their conduct also was on that basis. Both parties were content with filing affidavits. The ‘B’ party did not seek to avail itself of the proceedings under section 147, Criminal Procedure Code. I, therefore, do not accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the ‘B’ party and reject it as untenable. In view of the fact that the learned Magistrate has not considered the contents of the affidavits filed on both sides and weighed their evidentiary value, the orders of the Courts below cannot be upheld. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the orders of the Courts below and direct the learned Magistrate (Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi) to dispose of the matter afresh after considering the contents of the affidavits filed on both sides. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the orders of the Courts below and direct the learned Magistrate (Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi) to dispose of the matter afresh after considering the contents of the affidavits filed on both sides. Since this is an old matter, the learned Magistrate will try to dispose it of within two months from the date of receipt of the records. A.B.K. ----- Revision allowed; matter remitted.