JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State respondent 2. The question in this revision petition is whether the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. drawn by the Executive Magistrate, Goalpara in Misc. Case No. 88/2004 was illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The dispute arose relating to a plot of land measuring 10/11 bighas covered by dag No. 160. Police submitted a report on 17.12.2002, alleging that the above 10/11 bighas of land was possessed by Niranjan Kalita and Sri Biresh Kalita of Medhipara village, on behalf of the temple. The opp.parties, namely, Nasib Ali, Abdul Kader Mondal, Osher Mondal and Rofijul Hoque trespassed into the said land on 11.12.2002. On the basis of said report, by order dated 26.5.2004, learned Magistrate drew up proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Misc.Case No. 1/2003. In that proceeding, eventually the learned Executive Magistrate passed final order declaring the possession in favour of Niranjan Kalita and Sri Biresh Kalita of Medhipara village with a direction to the police, to hand over possession of the land to the first party. The police could not execute the order. In the meantime police submitted another report on 21.5.2004 alleging breach of peace for dispute relating to possession of the same land between the same parties. On such report, learned Executive Magistrate, Goalpara again drew up a fresh proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 88/2004 and eventually passed final order on 22.3.2005. The said order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara and by the impugned order dated 14.12.2005, learned Sessions Judge set aside the order basically on two grounds i.e. (i) learned Magistrate did not record any finding in respect of his satisfaction that there was breach of peach and (ii) the second parties directed to be evicted from the disputed land were in possession of the disputed land for more than two month prior to submission of police report or receipt of information by the Magistrate. 4. 4. Section 145 (I) of Cr.P.C. lays down that whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information, that a dispute likely to cause 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. 5. Sub-Section (4) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. reads as under: 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 thanks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether 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). 6. A plain reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that before invoking jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is under obligation to record his satisfaction that breach of peace exists concerning any land etc. within his local jurisdiction. Therefore, mere dispute relating to any immovable property between the two private parties is not sufficient for the purpose of drawing up a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., for the simple reason, that the Chapter X of the Cr.P.C. envisages the maintenance of public order and tranquillity and not for redressal of private dispute. within his local jurisdiction. Therefore, mere dispute relating to any immovable property between the two private parties is not sufficient for the purpose of drawing up a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., for the simple reason, that the Chapter X of the Cr.P.C. envisages the maintenance of public order and tranquillity and not for redressal of private dispute. The initial order drawing up proceeding under Section 145(i) Cr.P.C. shows that learned Magistrate did not record his satisfaction specifically with regard to breach of peace in the locality or breach of peace involving the people of the locality. Mere breach a private peace between two individual or dispute relating to possession between two individual is not sufficient for invoking jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. However, in the present case, the facts reveals that the dispute was not between two individual, rather entire villagers were involved. Therefore, initial order though a cryptic one, in the facts and circumstance of the case, in my view, can be held to have satisfied the condition of existence of breach of peace envisaged by Section 145(I) Cr.P.C. 7. The proviso to Sub-Section (4) clearly indicates that when a party has been dispossessed more than two months before the date, on which the report of police officer or the information was received by the Magistrate, no order for restoration of of possession can be made in favour of such first party. In the present case the materials on record transpire, that the opposite parties trespassed into the disputed land on 11.12.2002 giving rise to another proceeding, which clearly demonstrated that the opp. parties, namely, Nasib Ali, Abdul Kader Mondal, Osher Mondal and Rofijul Hoque admittedly dispossessed the first party on 11.12.2002. whereas, evidently the Magistrate received the police report on 21.05.2004 i.e. after more than one year of dispossession of the first parties. Therefore, the proceeding drawn by the Executive Magistrate on 26.5.2004 and final order passed on 22.3.2005 directing the police to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioners by evicting the opp. parties appears to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and illegal, in view of the proviso to Sub-Section 4 of Section 145 Cr.P.C. 8. Therefore, the proceeding drawn by the Executive Magistrate on 26.5.2004 and final order passed on 22.3.2005 directing the police to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioners by evicting the opp. parties appears to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and illegal, in view of the proviso to Sub-Section 4 of Section 145 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Sessions Judge in setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Goalpara, inasmuch as the order of the executive Magistrate apparently suffered from illegality. Accordingly the revision petition is found devoid of merit and dismissed. Send back the