JUDGMENT 1. -Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petition has a chequered history. From the record, it appears that the petitioner has filed a revenue suit No. 70/67 in the Court of S.D.M. Bundi in respect of land in question against group of persons.for possession of the land in question ad-measuring 101 bighas and 6 biswas alleging that the said land was in his tenancy and the defendants have encroached upon the land from time to time between 1961-67. The suit for possession was filed on 3.5.1967. 3. Further the facts about the said suit which are available on record and not in dispute are that the said suit was decreed against the defendants for possession adjudicating the title in favour of the present petitioner. Thereafter an execution application was filed on 2.11.1971 which was rejected at the first instance for want of prosecution. The restoration application was rejected on 10.7.1978. A second execution application was filed on 21.1.1979, which was also dismissed on 1.2.1980 by the SDO Bundi. 4. However, the adjudication of the title having thus settled, the genesis of the present dispute arose in 1997 with filing of a complaint under Sections 107 Cr.PC. before the SHO by Inderjeet alleging that the land in question was impeaceful possession of the petitioner Inderjeet and on the said land he has also borrowed loan from the Bank of Baroda, Bundi Branch by way of agricultural loan and the petitioner was cultivating the land. The defendants tried to encroach upon the land with threatening to his life. This complaint was lodged on 20th August, 1996. 5. The S.H.O. after making investigation submitted an application before the S.D.O. on 22nd August, 1997 stating that as per his inquiry, it is said that the land in question was held by the complainant; and that until a year before the complaint the land was being cultivated on sharing basis with the accused. However, when for the current year the applicant Inderjeet was not prepared to continue with the cultivation on sharing basis, the dispute has arisen and there is a serious dispute existing between the parties about the possession and cultivatory right over the land which is likely to cause breach of peace. The application was made with a request to take appropriate action under Section 145/146 Cr.PC. The application was made with a request to take appropriate action under Section 145/146 Cr.PC. for taking possession of the land in the court custody and pass necessary order. 6. On making of this application, after issuing the notices to the respondents, the S.D.O. passed an order on 18.8.1998 finding that in spite of notice, no reply has been submitted by the respondents at that time and from the report of the S.H.O. on investigation, it appears that there is a serious dispute which is likely to cause breach of peace in connection with the land in question and ordered that the land in question be taken possession of and during the pending proceedings the Receiver be appointed on the basis of report submitted by the S.H.O., without expressing any opinion on the merits. 7. Aggrieved with this order, the respondents in this petition filed a revision petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bundi. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom revision was transferred was of the opinion that since- the learned S.D.O. has considered the complaint under Section 107 lodged before the S.H.O. along with the complaint under Section 145 Cr.PC. and has made complaint under Section 107 the basis for his order, the order under challenge is not valid. That is the only reason which prevailed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi for setting aside the order dated 29.8.1998. This has led to fling of this petition on behalf of Inderjeet. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the S.H.O. on his investigation has found that the existing dispute regarding land which is likely to cause serious breach of peace, he is competent to make an application under Section 145 Cr.PC. before the Executive Officer and on that premises it has the revisional jurisdiction to pass necessary order. On the basis of that application a police officer does not seem to be a competent authority before the executive Magistrate that there exists a dispute regarding the land which is likely to cause breach of peace. Therefore, the only reason, which prevailed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi cannot be sustained in law. 10. On the basis of that application a police officer does not seem to be a competent authority before the executive Magistrate that there exists a dispute regarding the land which is likely to cause breach of peace. Therefore, the only reason, which prevailed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi cannot be sustained in law. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that since the petitioner has failed to execute the decree in his favour, procedure adopted by him by securing the possession of the land which he has failed to secure through the execution of lawful decree the Court ought not to allow such procedure for the purpose of avoiding a time barred remedy available to the applicant. Since he has failed to protect his right in accordance with law, he cannot use these provisions for securing decree in his favour. 11. Having given my careful consideration, I am unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. According to the counsel for the respondents himself the last order passed in the executing proceedings was somewhere in 1980. However, the complaint, which has given rise to present lis has been raised by Indrajeet about fresh threat to his possession and cultivators rights stating clearly that on this land he has borrowed bank loan for agricultural purpose. The S.H.O. in his investigation in complaint found prima facie that the land was being held by the petitioner and until a year before the dispute has arisen the land was being cultivated through the respondents on sharing basis. Since for the current year the petitioner was not willing to part with possession on the sharing basis and wanted to cultivate the land alone, it has resulted in serious dispute between the parties. What is the effect-of having cultivated the land on sharing basis, on the rights of the parties, is not and cannot be a domain decision for 145/146 Cr.PC. and that is not even the case of the respondents. 12. In these circumstances, the existence of dispute about land in question, which is likely to cause breach of peace was perceived by the S.H.O. while investigating the complaint lodged by petitioner and he brought it to the notice of the Executive Magistrate. and that is not even the case of the respondents. 12. In these circumstances, the existence of dispute about land in question, which is likely to cause breach of peace was perceived by the S.H.O. while investigating the complaint lodged by petitioner and he brought it to the notice of the Executive Magistrate. It was the information submitted by S.H.O. that provided the basis for initiating proceedings and taking action under Section 145 by the Executive Magistrate as S.D.O. 13. In fact, Section 145 Cr.PC. mandates that whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists, concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the ground of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. 14. Therefore, if on complaint lodged by the present petitioner, the police officer was of the opinion that there exists a serious dispute between the parties namely the complainant and accused concerned the land in question and which is likely to cause breach of peace, it was his obligation to have informed the S.D.O.-the Executive Magistrate by making application for taking appropriate proceedings under Section 145 and pass necessary orders thereon. The report of the police officer became the starting point in initiating the proceeding by the Executive Magistrate, if he is otherwise satisfied that a case for initiating proceedings satisfied that a case for initiating proceedings under Section 145 exists. Apparently, the Executive Magistrate-cum-S.D.O. had not committed any error in acting on the basis of information about likely breach of peace due to existence of dispute relating to possession of land in question. 15. In fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly erred in holding that since the complaint was lodged under Section 107 Cr.PC. before the S.H.O. and application was moved before the Executing Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the report made on such complaint could not have been made basis for initiating the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC. 15. In fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly erred in holding that since the complaint was lodged under Section 107 Cr.PC. before the S.H.O. and application was moved before the Executing Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the report made on such complaint could not have been made basis for initiating the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC. This clearly over looks the fact that information about existence of dispute relating to possession of land which is likely to cause breach is envisaged under Section 145 Cr.PC. emanating from police. In turn police is not also to act mechanically. The complaint received by it about any such dispute and result of such investigation become integral part of information to be submitted to Executive Magistrate by the Police. Hence, the material which inheres in information by police cannot be irrelevant consideration and cannot be kept out of consideration. 16. The petition must succeed on this count alone. 17. Moreover, it is a matter of enquiry what has been the position since 1980 and what has transpired between 1980 to 1997 between the parties and about the possession over the land in question, title of which has been adjudicated in favour of the petitioner. Though execution has failed on some technical points, it becomes a matter of enquiry in view of the report of the S.H.O. that the land was being cultivated on sharing basis by the respondents with permission of the petitioner. If that were so, then obviously prima facie, the previous dispute about possession through execution of decree must have come to an end and the parties may have entered into new relationship. 18. This aspect has been totally ignored by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The fact that the land holder remains the State and the complainant was only a tenant, does not affect the position of the dispute about the possession of the land in question which exists not between the State and the respondents but between the tenant and persons who are allegedly seeking to trespass over the land. The other significant question which has been stated and needed investigation is whether the petitioner had secured agricultural loan in respect of the land in question, if so when and on what ground. 19. The other significant question which has been stated and needed investigation is whether the petitioner had secured agricultural loan in respect of the land in question, if so when and on what ground. 19. Therefore, it cannot be said that when the order was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 1.8.1998 it was without any foundation and without considering the material on record. Obviously he could not have gone on the merit of the case of rival parties. Therefore, his order would not have referred to on the merits of the rival claim of the parties. Absence of such reference cannot be held against the order. 20. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. Judgment under challenge dated 21.7.2000 is set aside and the order passed by the Executive Magistrate on 28.8.1998 is restored.Petition allowed. *******