P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 22. 09. 03 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Barasat (Sadar), North 24-Parganas in Case No. M. P. 1387 (A)/2003 under sections 145/146 of the Code restraining both the parties i. e. , the petitioners and the opposite parties from entering into the disputed land and directing the BL and LRO, Barasat-II to act as receiver under section 146 of the Code for the said disputed land. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as it emerges from the revisional application is that, the petitioners claim themselves to be bargadars under Kazi Mujibar Rahman, owner of the land paying regular share of produce to the land owner. The petitioners and some other bargadars being in apprehensions of breach of peace filed an application under section 144 (2) of the Code on 16. 09. 03 when the learned Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate in Case No. M. P. 1366/03 gave direction to I. C. , Barasat P. S. to see that barga right of the petitioners are not encroached and to maintain peace. Owner of the land subsequently filed a writ application being W. P. No. 14798 (W) /2003 in this Court when Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay - J directed Inspector-in-Charge, Barasat P. S. to see that no breach of peace takes place in and around the lands in question. It was made further clear that the said order will not authorise the police authorities to interfere with the rights of the recorded bargadars under any circumstances. On 16. 11. 03 petitioners received a letter and came to know that on 22. 9. 03 learned Executive Magistrate, Barasat in Case No. M. P. 1387 (A)/03 has passed order directing that Rahim Molla and 11 others and Abbas Mudi and six others are restrained from entering into the said disputed lands in question and BL and LRO, Barasat-II is directed to act as receiver under section 146 of the Code. The order of the learned Executive Magistrate is illegal and the petitioners were not given any opportunity to lead evidence regarding possession of the land. Accordingly, the petitioners challenged the said order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in this revisional application. The order of the learned Executive Magistrate is illegal and the petitioners were not given any opportunity to lead evidence regarding possession of the land. Accordingly, the petitioners challenged the said order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in this revisional application. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioners contended that successive proceedings under sections 144/145 of the Code are bad in law. When in W. P. No. 14798 (W)/03 there was direction by this Court in the writ application not to interfere with the rights of the recorded bargadar, there was no ground for the learned Magistrate to pass an order regarding appointment of receiver on the said lands. The said order is absolutely bad in law as the learned Magistrate without passing any order of attachment passed order appointing receiver. Without passing any order of attachment no receiver can be appointed. The composite order starting a proceeding under section 145 of the Code and appointing receiver straight way without attachment of the land is illegal and bad in law. According the said order should be set aside. ( 4 ) HE further contended that a civil suit is pending in Barasat Court and there has been an order of ad interim injunction in favour of Rahim Molla and others as plaintiff against Abed Modi and others, present opposite parties in T. S. No. 457/03. During pendency of civil suit, learned Executive Magistrate is not empowered to pass any order regarding appointment of receiver when the disputed plots are subject matter of civil suit. In support of his contention he cited the decisions reported in 1991 Cr LJ 160 (Kisun Yadav v. Asharfi Yadav ). ( 5 ) LEARNED advocate appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 8 contended that the alleged barga receipts filed by the petitioners are not believable. Moreover, the barga receipts do not show that they paid share of produce to owner of the land Mujibar Rahman and the barga receipt show that the receipts were granted by one Kazi Helaluddin. The information produced by the opposite parties reveal that the disputed plots are vested in State and there cannot be any barga right over vested land. Government has every jurisdiction to issue patta to the competent persons as the Government thinks fit and proper. The information produced by the opposite parties reveal that the disputed plots are vested in State and there cannot be any barga right over vested land. Government has every jurisdiction to issue patta to the competent persons as the Government thinks fit and proper. There is serious law and order problem concerning the disputed plots and previously there were 2/3 murders concerning the said lands. For this reason the learned Executive Magistrate appointed receiver over the disputed lands and the order of the learned Executive Magistrate is correct. The record of rights produced by petitioners are not at all concerned with the subject matter of the order of the learned Executive Magistrate. There is no bar for the parties to proceed with the civil suit even during pendency of the present proceeding. The papers produced by the added party are not concerning bara certificate or barga matter. Kazi Mujibar Rahman is not the owner of the disputed land. The title suit was not filed by Kazi Mujibar Rahman or his father. In the description of land of the civil suit a different mouza also has been mentioned as Uttarhat and this mouza is not the subject matter of order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. Order of the learned Executive Magistrate requires no interference as it was made considering emergency. Criminal Court can appoint receiver until and unless a receiver is appointed by the civil Court over the same land for protection of the property. The petitioners are not bargadars at all but are strangers. The bargadars are those whose right has been declared to be protected by the order of Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay in the writ application being W. P. No. 14798 (W)/03. A person does not become a bargadar by producing a fake barga receipt and barga certificate is necessary. In the instant case there is no barga certificate in favour of the petitioners to make out their case or to make out their right in the disputed lands. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate should be maintained and this revisional application should be dismissed. In the instant case there is no barga certificate in favour of the petitioners to make out their case or to make out their right in the disputed lands. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate should be maintained and this revisional application should be dismissed. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate for the added opposite parties contended that in T. S. No. 162 of 1969 filed by Kazi Ershad Hossain against State of West Bengal in the Court of the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Baraat order of vesting was challenged and the suit was decreed. State of West Bengal preferred appeal and in Title Appeal No. 521 of 1971 by judgment and order dated 31. 7. 72 learned Additional District Judge, Barasat dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif. State of West Bengal did not prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Thereafter, Kazi Ershad Hossain filed a writ being Civil Order No. 2336 (W)/1985 for correction of record of rights and this Court by order dated 26. 2. 85 directed the Land and Land Revenue Department to consider the representation of the petitioners for correction of record of rights within three months. The Land Tribunal also passed direction for correction of record. Learned Executive Magistrate appointed receiver without passing any order of attachment and the said order is bad in law as it was made in violation of sections 145, 146 of the Code. The order does not spell out satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and ground of satisfaction is missing in the said order. The impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate being bad in law should be set aside. In support of his contention he cited the decision reported in 1991 Cr LJ 160. ( 7 ) AFTER duly considering the submission made by the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the revisional application, affidavit in opposition submitted by the opposite parties 1 to 8, affidavit in opposition submitted by the added opposite parties, supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners and the annexures added with the revolution applications and affidavits, I am of opinion that this revisional application is not the proper forum to decide who are bargadars of the disputed lands and who are not. Therefore the questions raised by the respective parties, i. e. the petitioners, the opposite parties and the added opposite parties claiming themselves either as bargadars or land owner for consideration in this revisional application is wholly irrelevant and accordingly this Court would not enter into discussion at all whether the parties are bargadars or not. In this revisional application which has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Baraat under sections 145 and 146 of the Code, question of bargadar or not is not at all a matter of consideration, and being irrelevant, I refrain from making any observation regarding barga right or who are bargadars and who are not and who is owner of lands and who are not. Question of bargadar may be decided in appropriate forum at appropriate stage. For the present the direction passed by Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay - J in W. P. No. 14798 (W)/03 will prevail regarding rights of the recorded bargadars. ( 8 ) IT appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Barasat in M. P. Case No. 1387 (A)/03 by order dated 22. 9. 03 under sections 145 and 146 of the Code after perusing the police report restrained Rahim Molla and 11 others and Abed Mudi and 6 others from entering into the disputed land in question after drawing up a proceeding under section 145 of the Code. Thereafter, the learned Executive Magistrate appointed BL and LRO, Barast II to act as receiver under section 146 of the Code for the said disputed land as mentioned in police report and to act in observation of all the formalities necessary. The said order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate reveals that the disputed land is in the area of Hindi Bheri near village Tehatta under Sashan G. P. within P. S. Barasat. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the said order is bad in law as without passing any order of attachment of land the learned Magistrate cannot appoint any receiver. ( 9 ) LET me consider what is the power of an Executive Magistrate under section 146 of the Code. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the said order is bad in law as without passing any order of attachment of land the learned Magistrate cannot appoint any receiver. ( 9 ) LET me consider what is the power of an Executive Magistrate under section 146 of the Code. Provisions of section 146 of the Code runs as follows:"power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver.- (1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, the may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. (2) When the Magistrate attaches the subject to dispute, he may, if no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been appointed by any Civil Court, make such arrangements as he considers proper for looking after the property of if he thinks fit, appoint a receiver thereof, who, shall have, subject to the control of the Magistrate, all the powers of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):" ( 10 ) SECTION 146 (1) of the Code thus makes it clear that the property can be attached in any of the following situations:i)if there is emergency to attach the property; ii)if the Magistrate decides that none of the parties was in possession on the date of the preliminary order under section 145 (1) and (iii) if the Magistrate is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute on the date of preliminary order. ( 11 ) THE impugned order dated 22. 9. ( 11 ) THE impugned order dated 22. 9. 03 reveals that the learned Magistrate in the said order did not reflect at all which of the parties was in possession of the disputed land on the date of preliminary order. The said order also does not reflect that the learned Magistrate was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute on the date of preliminary order. The said order envisages that the learned Magistrate passed the order considering only emergency. In my opinion to make out a case for emergency there must be some materials before the learned Magistrate on record from the statement of the parties, or documents produced or evidence adduced and not upon the personal impression of the learned Magistrate. It appears that in the instant matter the learned Magistrate relied on the report submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge of Barasat P. S. and on the basis of such report formed an opinion that there is apprehension of serious breach of peace over the disputed lands. In my opinion mere apprehension of breach of peace cannot be regarded as a sufficient ground for coming to the conclusion that it was a case of emergency. Besides apprehension of breach of peace something more is required to come to a conclusion that there was emergency which is sufficient to pass an order under section 146 of the Code. The said order does not reflect that ripe standing crop was over the land and that necessitated the learned Magistrate to appoint BL and LRO as receiver to harvest the standing crop. It is clear that there was no standing crop over the disputed land so as to appoint a receiver over the disputed land. The order passed by the learned Magistrate as it appears to me do not fulfill the exact requirements of making out a case of emergency to pass such an order. ( 12 ) MOREOVER, the learned advocate for the petitioner rightly contended that without passing any order of attachment a receiver cannot be appointed. The decision cited by him in Kisun Yadav's case (supra) is quite appropriate in the instant matter. In the reported case the learned Magistrate did not pass order of attachment of the subject matter of dispute under the provisions of section 146 of the Code. The decision cited by him in Kisun Yadav's case (supra) is quite appropriate in the instant matter. In the reported case the learned Magistrate did not pass order of attachment of the subject matter of dispute under the provisions of section 146 of the Code. Learned Magistrate simply passed the order for issue of notice under section 146 and not an order of attachment. Thereafter, he proceeded to appoint Circle Officer as a receiver. It was held by the Patna High Court that the composite order appointing a receiver and giving direction that he should get the standing crop plucked in his presence by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction and illegal. In the instant case also the learned Executive Magistrate did not pass any order attaching the subject matter of dispute or the disputed lands. Without passing any order of attachment under section 146 (1) of the Code after an order under section 145 (1) of the Code, the order appointing the BL and LRO, Barasat II to act as receiver for the said disputed lands is not proper and legal. ( 13 ) IT has been contended by the petitioner as well as by the added respondents that a civil suit being T. S. No. 457/03 is pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barasat between Rahim Molla and others as plaintiff and Abbed Mudi and others as defendant and in the said suit interim order of injunction has been passed by the learned Judge in favour of plaintiff Rahim Molla who is the petitioner No. 1 in this revisional application. No copy of plaint, temporary injunction petition in connection with T. S. No. 457/03 has been produced before this Court to show which are the disputed lands involved in the said suit. Added opposite parties produced xerox copy of Title Suit No. 162 of 1969 and Title Appeal No. 521 of 1971 as well as copy of Civil Order No. 2336 (W)/85 of this Court to show that disputed lands were not vested in State. It is not clear whether in T. S. No. 162 of 69 the question of vesting was under the provisions of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act or under the provisions of W. B. L. R. Act. Learned advocate for opposite parties 1 to 8 also produced one information slip to show that the disputed plots are vested in State. It is not clear whether in T. S. No. 162 of 69 the question of vesting was under the provisions of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act or under the provisions of W. B. L. R. Act. Learned advocate for opposite parties 1 to 8 also produced one information slip to show that the disputed plots are vested in State. It is not clear to this Court whether subsequent vesting was under the provisions of W. B. L. R. Act. Besides that, it has already been observed that copy of plaint and temporary injunction petition of the subsequent suit being T. S. No. 457 of 2003 were not produced before this Court. Moreover, question of vesting cannot be a matter of consideration in this revisional application which has been preferred against the order of the learned Executive Magistrate passed under section 146 of the Code. In the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mohant v. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1985 SC 472 it was held by the Supreme Court that, when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 of the Code, would not be justified. ( 14 ) THE above discussion makes it clear that the order of the learned Executive Magistrate appointing BL and LRO, Barasat II to act as receiver over the disputed land without passing any order for attachment of the disputed land in view of provisions of section 146 (1) of the Code is not in accordance with law. If the learned Magistrate finds that still there is a case of emergency in order to prevent serious breach of peace or that he is unable to decide who amongst the parties was in actual possession as referred to in section 145 or decides that none of the parties was in such actual possession, he can exercise power under the provisions of section 146 of the Code and can attach the subject to dispute and thereafter may appoint receiver in relation to subject of dispute, if not any receiver has not been appointed by the Civil Court in the meantime. Receiver may be appointed by learned Executive Magistrate after complying with provisions of law, if any receiver is not already appointed by the Civil Court in a litigation between the parties concerning same subject matter of dispute. ( 15 ) FROM the discussions as made above, it is crystal clear that the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Barasat which is the composite order under sections 145 and 146 of the Code appointing receiver without passing any order of attachment is not in accordance with law and accordingly the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In the result, the revisional application succeeds and the impugned order is hereby set aside and quashed. Urgent xerox certified copy to given to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously. Application succeeds