JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.2.99 passed by the learned S.D.M. Pratapgarh whereby he attached the land and appointed receiver thereon. The parties to the dispute are Madan Lal and his 3 sons on one side (petitioners) and 4 sons of Madan Lal on the other (respondents No. 2 to 5). 2. The short facts of the case are these, Giriraj (respondent No. 5) filed an application before the S.D.M. Pratapgarh praying that receiver be appointed on the land mentioned at para No. 1 of his application. It was stated that the land mentioned at para No. 1 of the application stood in the name of his father Madan Lal (petitioner No. 1) though not distributed by metes and bounds, yet he was in possession of 1 /7th of the land and was cultivating thereon, but his six brothers were adament to deprive him of his land and they had warned him that if he entered the land, he would be killed. This application was forwarded by the S.D.M. to the police for enquiry. The S.H.O., RS. Pratapgarh, after enquiry, filed an application under section 145 Cr.P.C. for action in the matter. The learned S.D.M. passed the preliminary order on 28.7.98 and issued notices to the 6 non-applicants. The petitioners No. 1 to 4 appeared and fiied their reply opposing the application of Giriraj. The learned S.D.M. by the impugned order attached the land and appointed the S.H.O. Pratapgarh as receiver thereon. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing out that the learned S.D.M. has not recorded in the order that it was a case of emergency, contended that the orders of attachment and appointment of Against the order dated 1.2.99 of the S.D.M. Pratapgarh receiver are illegal. He submitted that the apprehension of the breach of peace is different than the state of emergency, and order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. can be passed only when it is found that the case require emergent action. 4. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. - to 5, on the other hand, contended that the report of the S.H.O. indicated that there was emergency and hence the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the order under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. 5. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. 4. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. - to 5, on the other hand, contended that the report of the S.H.O. indicated that there was emergency and hence the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the order under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. 5. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied that a dispute, likely to cause a breach of peace, exists concerning any land, he may make an order under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. Thereupon the parties are called upon to file their respective claims. An order under sub-section (1) of Section 146 can be passed by the Executive Magistrate after making an order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 on the existence of any of the three conditions, (i) if the Magistrate considers the case to be one of emergency, (ii) if he decides that none of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute, (iii) if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute. 6. In the impugned order it is not stated that the learned S.D.M. was of the view that none of the parties was in possession of the land or that he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the party was in possession of the land. In the order, it has also not been stated that it was a case of emergency. What has been observed in the order is that since Madanlal, who is father has not distributed the property amongst his seven sons, there is dispute between the parties and there had been occasions of breach of peace. Even in the application of the S.H.O. it was not stated that there was emergent situation, it was only stated in the application that because of the undivided property there is dispute between the brothers and at times breach of peace was caused. On the existence of apprehension of breach of peace, it cannot be said that a state of emergency had existed. The term 'emergency' means existence of factors or conditions which emerged calling for immediate action to attach the land and take it under control and the management of the court. The word 'emergency' envisages a situation completely different from one when there is apprehension of breach of peace. 7. The term 'emergency' means existence of factors or conditions which emerged calling for immediate action to attach the land and take it under control and the management of the court. The word 'emergency' envisages a situation completely different from one when there is apprehension of breach of peace. 7. A reading of the orders makes it clear that the order of attachment and appointment of receiver has been passed without proper application of mind. There is no finding recorded that any of the conditions specified in Section 146(1) Cr.RS. existed. It is further to be noticed that it is the case of Madan Lal (father) that the land in dispute is his self acquired property. The question of possession shall be decided by the Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, but as it is not borne out by the material on record that the case is one of emergency, as to pass order under section 146(1) Cr.P.C., the order is liable to be set-aside.6. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The order dated 1.2.99 passed by the iearned S.D.M. Pratapgarh is set-aside. *******