JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashment of the judgment and order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, Tinsukia as well as quashment of judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision No. 66(4)/2010 setting aside the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Ex) Tinsukia in Case No. 36/2010. 2. The petitioner’s claim in this petition is that he is possessing a plot of land since 1966 measuring 4 bighas 0 kathas 7 lessas covered by Dag No. 106(part), 107, 108 of Periodic Patta No. 22 situated at Bazaltoli Bongali Gaon, Tinsukia and he has also been paying revenue to the Government. 3. The respondent No. 1 is alleged to have trespassed into the aforesaid land in possession of the petitioner with tractor with a view to occupy the said land and refused to vacate the said land inspite of protest by the petitioner. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 1 got the land mutated in his name and land records have been corrected accordingly. 4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 144 Cr.PC for restraining the respondent No. 1 and his men from entering into the disputed land. The said application under Section 144 Cr.PC was registered vide Misc. Case No. 36/2010 and thereafter on receipt of the report from the Police, the learned Executive Magistrate directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the land in question. Thereafter, the said application of the petitioner in Case No. 36/2010 was converted to one under Section 145 Cr.PC and issued notice to both the parties asking them to show cause as to why the land should not be attached under Section 146 Cr.PC. 5. The respondent No. 1, as averred in the instant petition, did not file written statement against the application of the petitioner and rather at the stage of evidence submitted written evidence. The respondent No. 1 never appeared in the Court personally. The learned Executive Magistrate vide his order dated 11.10.2010 declared possession of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner and prohibited the respondent No. 1 from causing any disturbance to the possession of the land by the petitioner. 6. The respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia vide Criminal Revision No. 66(4)/2010 on 22.12.2010. 6. The respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia vide Criminal Revision No. 66(4)/2010 on 22.12.2010. This criminal revision petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate vide judgment dated 19.10.2011. It was held in the judgment in the said criminal revision petition that the dispute between the parties is private in nature. According to the petitioner the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate did not suffer any infirmity and inspite of that the learned Sessions Judge interfered with that order in Criminal Revision No. 66(4)/2010. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashment of the judgment and order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, Tinsukia in Criminal Revision No. 66(4)/2010. 7. I have heard Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G Phukan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. NK Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 8. I have also meticulously perused the order dated 11.10.2010 and the judgment of the revisional Court including the Police report on the basis of which the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.PC was converted by the learned Executive Magistrate to one under Section 145 Cr.PC. 9. It appears from the Police report that a case being numbered as 64/2008 was filed by the instant petitioner before the learned Executive Magistrate in the year 2008. Although he did not pursue the proceeding for which it was dropped. From the Police report it does not appear at all that there is any likelihood of breach of peace or public tranquility in respect of the disputed land. But inspite of that the learned Executive Magistrate, vide his order dated 06.07.2010 drawn, a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC. It is statutorily prescribed that such a proceeding can be drawn up by the learned Executive Magistrate on being satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace. But in the instant case, it does not appear from the order dated 06.07.2010 that Police reported to him about any likelihood of breach of peace or public tranquility nor there is any other information received by him in the matter. But in the instant case, it does not appear from the order dated 06.07.2010 that Police reported to him about any likelihood of breach of peace or public tranquility nor there is any other information received by him in the matter. So, it appears that drawal of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC itself lacks statutory support. 10. On the other hand, referring to the decision of this High Court in the case of Maqbul Hussain Vs. Syadur Rahman, reported in (1986) 2 GLR 167, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that this is absolutely a private dispute and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the order of the learned Executive Magistrate. It also appears from the statement made in the petition in the instant proceeding itself filed under Section 482 Cr.PC that the respondent No. 1 has been claiming that he has been in possession of the disputed land and has been paying land revenue but does not have the sale deed with him, which is yet to be executed meaning thereby that he does not own the land as per records. It is a settled principle of law that in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC, the ownership of the land cannot be decided, but at the same time, the petitioner himself stated that the respondent No. 1 has got his name mutated in the revenue records in respect of the disputed land. This is, in fact, a claim and counter-claim between the parties regarding ownership, and that is how, perhaps the matter came to be discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in the revision petition although it has no bearing on the matter at hand. 11. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that there was even no remotest indication at all in the Police report that there was likelihood of breach of peace between the parties, and from that point of view, the learned Magistrate could not have drawn up the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC. 12. In view of the above discussions, and reasons recorded therein, I am of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Criminal Revision No. 66(4)/2010 does not suffer from any infirmity and rather the order of the learned Executive Magistrate did not have statutory baking to pass such an order. 13. 12. In view of the above discussions, and reasons recorded therein, I am of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Criminal Revision No. 66(4)/2010 does not suffer from any infirmity and rather the order of the learned Executive Magistrate did not have statutory baking to pass such an order. 13. Therefore, this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is dismissed.