Order : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by Sri Vinay Kumar, learned Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi, in M. Case No.1564 of 2007, whereby, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Executive Magistrate has decided the possession of the opposite party No.2 over the land and house in dispute. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the learned First Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Cr. Revision No.06 of 2008, whereby, the revision filed against the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2007 was dismissed by the Revisional Court below. 3. The impugned order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, in M. Case No.1564 of 2007 shows that there was dispute between both the parties regarding the land and house upon Plot No.498, Khata No.213 measuring 106 Kari, situated in Village Doranda at Ranchi. The impugned order further shows that the opposite party No.2 was the first party in the said proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., whereas the petitioners were the second party therein. The order shows that both the parties entered into the evidence and upon appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Executive Magistrate has come to a finding that the first party was in possession of the house and land in dispute from the period much before the initiation of the proceeding, and the second party had failed to prove the possession over the same. The learned Executive Magistrate, accordingly, confirmed the possession of the first party over the house and land in dispute, prohibiting the second party from interfering into the peaceful possession of the first party, until any contrary decision of the Competent Court. 4. It is an admitted position between both the parties that subsequent to the order passed by the Revisional Court, the petitioners have already filed a Title Suit in the Competent Court for declaration of their right, title and recovery of possession over the land in dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the learned Executive Magistrate has decided the title of the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the learned Executive Magistrate has decided the title of the parties. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has not recorded his subjective satisfaction about the apprehension of any breach of peace between the parties and without recording his subjective satisfaction about the apprehension of any breach of peace between the parties, the learned Magistrate has decided the possession of the first party opposite party No.2, which is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Opposite party No.2 that on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Executive Magistrate has decided the possession of the first party-opposite party No.2 over the house and land in dispute, and he has come to a clear cut finding that the first party is coming in possession of the disputed property from much prior to the initiation of the proceeding. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and it is a fit case for dismissing this application. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that though the learned Executive Magistrate has decided the possession of the first party over the disputed property, but it is apparent from the perusal of the order that the learned Executive Magistrate has not recorded his subjective satisfaction about the existence of the apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. It is well settled principle of law that the learned Magistrate was required to decide the possession of either of the parties only when there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. When there was no apprehension of breach of peace, there was no occasion for the Executive Magistrate to enter into the dispute of possession between the parties. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has not spoken a word about any apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. When there was no apprehension of breach of peace, there was no occasion for the Executive Magistrate to enter into the dispute of possession between the parties. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has not spoken a word about any apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ranchi, in M Case No.1564 of 2007 suffers from an inherent illegality and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 12.12.2007 passed by Sri Vinay Kumar, learned Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi, in M. Case No.1564 of 2007, as also the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the learned First Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Cr. Revision No.06 of 2008, are hereby, quashed. 9. This application is accordingly, allowed. Consequently, the aforesaid interlocutory application, filed by the opposite party No.2, stands disposed of.