Order.-This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sangareddy, passed under section 145(6), Criminal Procedure Code, dated 27th February, 1963, declaring ‘A’ party to be in possession of certain lands and directing the other party from interfering with their possession. The reference is based mainly on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer who is also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Sangareddy failed to follow the procedure prescribed under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code viz., that he did not make a preliminary order as contemplated under that section. Briefly the facts which have given rise to this reference may be stated. ‘A’ party (respondent before the learned Sessions Judge) filed a petition under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, on 27th December, 1962, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, alleging that he was the owner and in possession of S. No. 239 situate in Kolkur village since 1355 fasli and had personally cultivated the land. It was alleged that ‘B’ party was trying to take forcible possession of the land and there was apprehension of serious breach of the peace. It was prayed that urgent orders be issued restraining the other side from interfering with his possession. The learned Magistrate on the same day, i.e., 27th December, 1962, made the following order: "Admit the case and call for the other party. Dated 27th December, 1962." Thereupon notices were issued and the parties appeared and filed their written statements. The learned Magistrate after an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, came to the conclusion that ‘A’ party was in possession of the disputed land and accordingly issued an order in its favour directing the ‘B’ party to restrain from interfering with the possession of the ‘A’ party. Aggrieved by this order,‘B’ party went in revision to the Sessions Court, Sangareddy. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with the preliminary objection viz., that the order made by the Magistrate under section 145 (1), of Criminal Procedure Code was bad and referred the case to this Court for setting aside the said order as in his opinion the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain petition. It is no doubt true that while making the preliminary order the learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure laid down in section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code. It is no doubt true that while making the preliminary order the learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure laid down in section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code. It is provided therein that: "Whenever a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or 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 or water or the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession.......” The order passed by the learned Magistrate reproduced above, does not comply with this provision. But the question is whether this omission on the part of the Magistrate ousts his jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to Subbarama Iyer v. Mariya Pillai1, and Mariasusai Udayan v. Hazee Mohd. Azizuddin Saheb2, wherein it has been laid down that unless there is a preliminary order the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order under section 145(6), Criminal Procedure Code. Subbarama Iyer v. ‘Mariya Pillai1, deals with the case where there was no order purporting to be passed under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code. It was held that the whole proceedings under section 145 being illegal for want of jurisdiction, the order was not sustainable. The said judgment does not take into consideration the earlier Bench decision in Kamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakkal2. Similar is the position with the other case i.e., Mariasusai Udayan v. Hajee Mohd. Azizuddin Saheb3, cited by the learned Sessions Judge. In the said case it has been held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order under section 145(6), Criminal Procedure Code. Even in this case no reference was made to the Bench decision cited above and there is nothing on record to show as to what was the nature of the order made by the Magistrate. In the instant case, however, as mentioned earlier, there is an order by the Magistrate admitting the case and calling for the other party. Even in this case no reference was made to the Bench decision cited above and there is nothing on record to show as to what was the nature of the order made by the Magistrate. In the instant case, however, as mentioned earlier, there is an order by the Magistrate admitting the case and calling for the other party. I think the Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Kamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakkal2, correctly sums up the position in regard to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain a petition under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. It has been laid down therein that: “The essential requisite to give a Magistrate jurisdiction under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is that, he must be satisfied from information of some sort that a dispute exists likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning land or water or the boundaries thereof in his jurisdiction. Once he is so satisfied his jurisdiction is complete and his subsequent action must be considered in relation to procedure, not jurisdiction............An omission to set forth any preliminary order under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, the grounds of a Magistrate’s opinion do not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.” The same view seems to have been followed by Patna High Court in S.M. Yaqub v. T.N. Basu4 and the Allahabad High Court in Kapoor Chand v. Suraj Prasad5. Further it is to be noted that in the instant case the notices issued pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, dated 27th December, 1962, do indicate that the Magistrate was satisfied that there was likelihood of the breach of the peace. That in itself would be sufficient compliance with the order made under section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. In Kondappa v. Ram Rao6 the effect of the absence of the preliminary order under section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, was considered and it was held that where a preliminary order is not at all passed, subsequent proceedings are vitiated. But if there is a preliminary order, however defective it may be, the defect would not be fatal unless it has resulted in prejudice. But if there is a preliminary order, however defective it may be, the defect would not be fatal unless it has resulted in prejudice. In the said case there was no order in writing of any kind by the Magistrate under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code, and the notice issued by the Head Clerk of the Magistrate was deemed to be insufficient compliance with the order under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The case is distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the order is by the Magistrate though it is not drawn according to the requirement of section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. I am therefore not inclined to accept the reference by the learned Sessions Judge. It is accordingly rejected. A.B.K. ----- Reference rejected.