Order.- The petitioner, who is the first member of the first party, challenges the correctness of the order made by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Hunsur, on 6th May, 1966 under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, in his order, states that he was satisfied that there was an imminent danger of a breach of public peace and tranquillity at Illapur village, in the limits of the Periyapatna Police Station, which was within the jurisdiction of that Court, over a dispute concerning the possession of certain lands in that village. He, therefore, made the order as required by section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and directed that the lands in dispute be attached. The petitioner submits that this order is illegal, since it is not made in conformity with the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. In support of that submission, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not stated the grounds of his being satisfied that there was an imminent danger of a breach of public peace and tranquillity in the village over the dispute as to the possession of the lands. All that he has done, while making the order, it is pointed out, is to refer to the ‘contents of the report’ of the Sub-Inspector of Police and the statement made by him in support of that report, and state that he was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning the lands. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the materials placed before him, before making the order, as no grounds for his being satisfied are stated therein; therefore, his statement in the order that he was satisfied that a dispute existed over the possession of the lands in that village and, as a consequence thereof, there was an imminent danger of a breach of public peace and tranquillity in the village, cannot be accepted. It is contended that a mere reference to the contents of the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is contended that a mere reference to the contents of the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police. or the statement in support of the report, as to the existence of the dispute likely to lead to a breach of the public peace, in the order made by the Magistrate is not sufficient to hold that the Magistrate had himself satisfied as to the existence of the dispute likely to lead to a breach of public peace and, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is illegal and must be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Mahomed Ali appearing for the respondents, states that though the learned Magistrate has not specifically stated the grounds in support of his order, nonetheless he states that the Magistrate was satisfied from the contents of the report and from the sworn testimony of the Sub-Inspector before he made the order and, therefore, it is contended that the requirements of sub-sect ion (1) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, are satisfied and the order should be maintained. What is required by sub-section (1) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is, in the first instance, that the Magistrate must be satisfied from the police report that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof within the local limits of his jurisdiction; and secondly, he must state the grounds of his being so satisfied. It is only then that he is entitled to make the order. The learned Magistrate has given no grounds of his being so satisfied, in his order, but has merely stated that he was satisfied from the police report and the statement of the Sub-Inspector. A mere reference to the contents of the report and the statement of the Sub-Inspector in support of that report, is not sufficient to make an order under section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate must state the grounds of his satisfaction before he makes the order. It is seen from the report that there was a complaint made by the first m;mber of the first party on 12th April, 1966. A criminal case had been filed against the members of the second party for offences punishable under sections 447 and 324, Indian Penal Code. It is seen from the report that there was a complaint made by the first m;mber of the first party on 12th April, 1966. A criminal case had been filed against the members of the second party for offences punishable under sections 447 and 324, Indian Penal Code. It is also seen that on 16th April, 1966, and on 4th May, 1966, the members of the second party presented a petition to the Periyapatna Police Station claiming that they were in possession of the lands in dispute, and that the first member of the first party, with the help of some 20 or 25 persons, was disturbing their possession and obstructing their cultivation. There is also a reference to the report made by the Police Patel of Illapur Village stating that there is a dispute over the possession of the lands in that village and that it may lead to a breach of the peace. The fact that a dispute existed over the possession of the lands and that the parties were trying to take the law into their own hands was ascertained by the D.S.P., Hunsur Sub-Division on 5th May, 1966. There is also a report made by one Sri Viswanath, son of Sri R.M. Channabasappa, a resident of the village that about 20 or 25 persons who were strangers to the village were moving about in the village carrying lathis, and that trouble was apprehended. These are the materials on which a report was made and submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police requesting the learned Magistrate to make an order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the P.S.I. submitted the report along with copies of the petition and other materials and examined himself in support of the report, it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to consider the same to satisfy himself, and if satisfied, to state in his order, the grounds of his being so satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists over the possession of the lands in dispute in the village. But, in his order, he has given no grounds of his being satisfied but merely contented himself by stating that, from the report and the statement of the Sub-Inspector of Police who made the report, he was satisfied that a dispute existed which might lead to a breach of the peace and tranquillity in the village. The Magistrate should have known that it is not the satisfaction of the P.S.I. who made the report, or his statement in support of the report, that enables him to make an order under section 145 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore a mere statement in the order by the Magistrate that he was satisfied from the report of the P.S.I. and his statement in support of the report that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning the lands in dispute, is not enough to make an order under section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but he must state the grounds of his being so satisfied which alone entitled the Magistrate to make the order under that section. It is his satisfaction for the grounds to be stated, which is the sin qua non of the order to be made under sub-section (1) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. In this case, it is not possible to state that the learned Magistrate was himself satisfied from the materials placed before him that there was a dispute existing which was likely to lead to an imminent danger of a breach of the public peace and tranquillity in the village, as no grounds of his being satisfied are stated by him in his order. Therefore, there was no subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate on consideration of the materials placed before him and consequently the order made by him is clearly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Mr. Ramachandra Rao further seeks to reinforce his submission that the order of the Magistrate is unsustainable by stating that the subsequent order made by the Magistrate, modifying his earlier order, clearly indicates that the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the materials placed before him when he made the earlier order stating that he was so satisfied that a dispute exists over the possession of the lands likely to lead to a breach of the public peace and tranquillity in the village. That, however, is not a valid submission since, if the exigencies of the case required, it was open for the Magistrate to make a suitable modification of the earlier order made by him, But since I have come to the con- clusion, for the reasons stated, that the earlier order made by the Munsiff-Magistrate on 6th May, 1966, cannot be sustained, the same is hereby set aside. In the result, this petition is allowed. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.