ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC against the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by ASJ, Sironj, District-Vidisha whereby the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by SDM, Lateri, District-Vidisha in Case No.116/145/2008 has been confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 submitting an application before SDO, Murwas claiming himself, Siraj Khan, Fidha Mohd., Satta Khan, Kallu Khan to be owner of land bearing survey No.470, 471 situated at Village-Lalchiya. The land just adjacent to the land of petitioner, respondent No.1 is having its own land and one medh is there. It is further averted that the petitioner has demolished the said medh and encroached upon such land of respondent No.1, hence prayed for necessary action. SDO, Murwas filed a complaint before SDM, Lateri submitting there is likelihood of breach of peace, hence the disputed land may be attached. Learned SDM, Lateri vide its order dated 30.10.2008 directed for attachment of disputed property. Being aggrieved with the order petitioner preferred criminal revision No.261/2008 before ASJ, Sironj. Learned ASJ, Sironj has confirmed the order passed by learned SDM, Lateri being aggrieved with the same, this revision petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and not under the provisions of law and deserves to be set aside. Learned SDM, Lateri committed illegality in attaching the disputed property in favour of third person. It is further submitted that prerequisite of making attachment under section 146(1) of CrPC is that there should be order of learned Magistrate under section 145(1) of CrPC It is submitted that learned trial Court has further committed illegality in not considering the fact that on the basis of likelihood of breach of peace land cannot be attached. It is prayed that impugned order be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order submitting that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court, hence prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. It is prayed that impugned order be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order submitting that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court, hence prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by SDM, Lateri which reads as under :- “30.10.2008 Fkkuk izHkkjh eqjokl }kjk b’rxklk dzekad 05@08 /kkjk 145 lh-vkj-ih-lh- ds rgr xzke yyfp;k fLFkr Hkwfe [kljk dzekad 470] 471 jdck 1-092 o 2-377 gsDVs;j ds dCtk dks ysdj ikVhZ dzekad 1&tQj [kka iq= vCnqy oghn [kka fu- eqjokl ,oa ikVhZ dzekad 2& xQkj [kka iq= Hkwjs [kka fu- eqjokl vkfn Fkkuk xqjokl rglhy yVsjh ds e/; fookn gksus ds dkj.k /kkjk 145 lh-vkj-ih-lh- ds rgr b’rxklk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA Fkkuk izHkkjh }kjk izLrqr b’rxklk dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA Fkkuk izHkkjh }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe dks ysdj ekSds ij ‘kkafr cuk, j[kus gsrq Hkwfe dks vVSp dj fdlh rhljs fu”i{k O;fDr dh lqiqnZxh esa nsus dk fuosnu fd;k gS] izdj.k ntZ fd, tkus gsrq i;kZIr dkj.k nf’kZr gSA** izdj.k fof/kor ntZ fd;k tk,A izdj.k esa izk- vkns’k tkjh gksA dqdZ vkns’k tkjh gksA is’kh fnukad 18-11-2008 vuqfoHkkxh; naMkf/kdkjh] yVsjh 6. As regard the procedure where dispute of concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace section 145 of CrPC provides as under :- 145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. (1) 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 grounds 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. (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression” land or water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property. (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression” land or water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property. (3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute, (4) The Magistrate shall then, without, reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub- section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub- section (1). (5) Nothing in this section’ shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under subsection (1) shall be final. (6)(a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed. (b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3). (7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto. (8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of. such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale- proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit. (9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing. (10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107. 7. As regard powers of Magistrate to attach the subject of dispute and to appoint Receiver section 146 of CrPC provides as under :- 146. 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, he 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 of 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 or 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); Provided that in the event of a receiver being subsequently appointed in relation to the subject of dispute by any civil Court, the Magistrate - (a) shall order the receiver appointed by him to hand over the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver appointed by the civil Court and shall thereafter discharge the receiver appointed by him; (b) may make such other incidental or consequential orders as may be just. 8. From perusal of the order passed by SDM, Lateri, it appears that no where he has recorded his satisfaction that dispute likely to cause breach of peace and also he has not recorded any where that it is a case of emergency. SDM, Lateri has directly passed the order of attachment. The impugned order shows that the SDM, Lateri has not applied his mind at all. It seems that the order of attachment has been written in ink while the whole order is a typed order. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid legal position, I find that learned SDM, Lateri has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. Learned revisional Court has also failed to consider the provisions of 145 and 146 of CrPC while giving stamp of approval to the order passed by SDM, Lateri. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition is hereby allowed. Impugned order is set-aside. Matter is remanded back to SDM, Lateri to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3979/2009 stands allowed accordingly.