J. D. Kapoor, J. ( 1 ). The impugned order passed by the SDM is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 145, Cr. P. C. Whenever, the dispute as to the possession of property is brought to the SDM, he had to decide one way or the other. In the impugned order, the learned SDM has observed that because of contradictory claims of the parties, he is unable to decide which party was in possession of the subject of the property and, therefore, he extended the order of attachment of the disputed property. The impugned order suffers from inherent infirmity and per se bad in law. ( 2 ). In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with a direction to the learned SDM to decide in positive terms as to who was in possession of property in question at the relevant time. In the meantime, the acquisition proceedings shall be made in abeyance.