JUDGMENT 1. -This petition is directed against the order dated 10.2.1999 passed by the learned S.D.M. Parbatsar whereby he rejected the application of the petitioners. 2. The contention of Mr. Choudhary is that under section 145(4) Cr.P.C. an enquiry is to be made by the Magistrate himself and it cannot be delegated to any other authority like the Tehsildar. He points out that in the impugned order, the S.D.M. has stated that the enquiry by the Tehsildar is not illegal. Mr. Punia is unable to support the order. 3. Under sub-sec. (4) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is required to decide the question of possession on the basis of the statements of the parties and the evidence produced' before him. This sub-section does not contemplate that an enquiry can be delegated to any other authority. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate obviously erred when he directed the enquiry to be made by the Tehsildar and held that the enquiry report of the Tehsildar would be considered by him. 4. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge had directed the Magistrate to decide the matter afresh after giving notice to Dayala Ram, Bhanwari Devi and other persons in whose possession the land was. It is obvious that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had not permitted that enquiry could be made by any other authority than the Magistrate himself. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is thus not sustainable. 5. Consequently, it is directed that the learned S.D.M. will decide the question of possession without being influenced by the report given by the Tehsildar. The learned S.D.M. may proceed as per the directions given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 6.8.1998.Orders accordingly. *******