JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed on behalf of persons who were applicants before Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, assailing order dated 19.6.2001 delivered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Revision Petition No. 28/2000. By the impugned order, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has reversed order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 7.9.2000. 2. Perusal of the file reveals that the suit land was part of joint khatedari land of Tulchha Ram, Bhaga Ram, Asa Ram and Chuna Ram. Chuna Ram died in the Samvat 2008 resulting which his widow Mst. Dhapi (non-petitioner No. 2 herein) stepped into shoes of her husband and became joint khatedar along with Tulchha Ram etc. To get her share partitioned by meats & bounds, Mst. Dhapi along with Tulchha Ram etc. filed a partition suit, which was decreed by meats & bounds on 27.5.1974 and since then 56 bighas 18 biswas of Khasra No. 237 and 15 bighas 14 biswas of Khasra No. 246 fell in the share of Mst. Dhapi. Mutation of above land was also entered in-her name and she remained khatedar tenant of above land till Samvat 2059 (Year 2001). 3. Off late, Mst. Dhapi went into 'nata' marriage with one Balu Ram and also alleged taken in adoption one Oma Ram S/o Raju Ram. Subsequently, Mst. Dhapi sold the land of her recorded khatedari by registered sale-deed dated 22.4.2000 to Hanumana Ram, who is non-petitioner No. 3 herein. Thereafter, when Hanumana Ram wanted to take possession of the suit land, dispute was raised by Tulchha Ram, Bagha Ram, Asa Ram etc. by filing a complaint u/s. 145 r/w Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur which was registered at No. 41/2000. Above complaint was-lodged on 1.5.2000, in which after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration their affidavits and documents, Sub-Divisional Magistrate by its order dated 7.9.2000 appointed Tehsildar, Nagaur receiver on the said land. % 4. Aggrieved against that order, Mst. Dhapi and Hanumana Ram filed revision petition No. 28/2000 before Court of Sessions, Nagaur which was accepted by the impugned order dated 19.6.2001. Hence this revision petition by present petitioners. 5. % 4. Aggrieved against that order, Mst. Dhapi and Hanumana Ram filed revision petition No. 28/2000 before Court of Sessions, Nagaur which was accepted by the impugned order dated 19.6.2001. Hence this revision petition by present petitioners. 5. Submissions of learned counsel for petitioners are that complaint u/s. 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 1.5.2000 and in consequence thereof when SHO Nagaur went on the site on 9.9.2000, possession of the suit land was with present petitioners, which is evident from memo of attachment prepared by the SHO on that day. It is also stated that Mst. Dhapi being a lady, has never cultivated the suit land herself and got the land cultivated through present petitioners they, being her collaterals. In support of above contention, in the trial Court on behalf of petitioners 13 affidavits were submitted. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for Mst. Dhapi and Hanumana Ram submitted that Mst. Dhapi was recorded khatedar since partition decree dated 27.5.1974. She was cultivating the land personally and she had every right to dispose it off. At no point of time present petitioners ever cultivated the suit land. The SHO Nagaur on 9.9.2000 may have taken possession of the suit land from present petitioners but that by itself is not sufficient to hold that present petitioners were in peaceful possession of the suit land within 2 months prior to the filing of complaint u/s. 145 & 146(1) Cr.P.C. In support of above contention, 7 affidavits on behalf of non-petitioners were filed in the trial Court. 7. After discussing rival averments, affidavits as also revenue record, the trial Court by its order dated 7.9.2000 has appointed Tehsildar, Nagaur as its receiver, which was set aside by the revisional Court after a thread-bare discussion of all aspects of the matter and taking into consideration the revenue record and jamabandi for Samvat 2056-2059 in the name of Dhapi. 8. Learned counsel for present petitioners has relied upon Gajendra Singh v. State, 1995 RCC 463 and Ganpat v. State, 1993 RCC 473 to support his argument that it is subjective satisfaction of SDM with regard to factum of possession over suit land immediately within two months prior to filing of the complaint which shall not be interfered with casually by revisional Court. On the contrary, learned counsel for non-petitioners has relied upon Sita Ram v. Ghasi Ram, 1980 RLW 155 , a Division Bench pronouncement of this Court, to submit that revision is maintainable upon an order appointing receiver by the SDM. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and pronouncements referred above. In the matter at hand, there is abundant documentary evidence in the form of copies of jamabandi that land comprising 56 bighas 18 biswas of Khasra 237 & 15 bighas 12 biswas of Khasra No. 246 has fallen in the share of Mst. Dhapi by partition decree dated 27.5.1974. Since then mutation has been entered in the name of Mst. Dhapi and she has been shown recorded khatedar in the jamabandi. She has been in possession of said land since then. 10. Had Mst. Dhapi not taken a son in adoption and subsequently, not sold her land to Hanumana Ram by registered sale-deed dated 22.4.2000; there may not have been any dispute between the parties. Present petitioners have apprehension that if the land is disposed of by Mst. Dhapi then upon her death, they being nearest collaterals, may not get the same through succession. 11. Though a revenue suit filed by present petitioners u/s. 188 of the Tenancy Act is pending before Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur with regard to this land including some other land of coparcener in which rights of parties are to be decided. However, proceedings u/ss. 144, 145 & 146(1) Cr.P.C. are only undertaken when with regard to some immovable property there is apprehension of breach of peace and pending that, the corpus which was bone of dispute, has also to be managed by either appointing a receiver or otherwise. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by its order dated 7.9.2000 has not assigned any reason why peaceful possession of Mst. Dhapi has been disturbed and receiver has been appointed on the suit land. Petitioners could not convince either me or learned revisional Court below as to how and under what circumstances they entered into de facto possession of the suit land when Mst. Dhapi was recorded khatedar of the land from very beginning. The order appointing receiver dated 7.9.2000 is not supported by any logic or evidence available on the file. It is settled principle that nobody shall be dispossessed from peaceful possession of immovable property. There is abundant record on the file that Mst. Dhapi was recorded khatedar of the land from very beginning. The order appointing receiver dated 7.9.2000 is not supported by any logic or evidence available on the file. It is settled principle that nobody shall be dispossessed from peaceful possession of immovable property. There is abundant record on the file that Mst. Dhapi was recorded kahtedar of the suit land. The Sessions Court by a cogent and convincing order, has set aside the order dated 7.9.2000 by which receiver was appointed by Court of SDM; which does not appear to be perverse and contrary to law. Unless and until the impugned order is found perverse, causing miscarriage of justice, this Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction, will not interfere in it. 12. Therefore, without expressing anything further on merits of rights of the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. This revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur dated 19.6.2001 is upheld. Possession of the suit land shall remain with the recorded khatedar. The Court of SDM shall dispose of the application u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. before it finally as early as possible, preferably within 6 months hence.Petition dismissed. *******