JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. In both these cases common questions of law and fact are involved and as such the cases are taken up together for analogous disposal with a common judgment. 2. Heard Mr. Rajib Dev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 in Criminal Petition No. 531/2015 and in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 261/2015 respectively. Also heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned state counsel. 3. On an application filed by the respondent Gongeswary Basumatary before the learned Executive Magistrate, Dhipu, Karbi Anglong a proceeding u/s 107 of the Cr.P.C. was drawn up by the learned Executive Magistrate vide his order dated 18.11.2013 passed in M.R. Case No. 44/2013 and both the parties were directed to execute bonds as per provisions of Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. for maintaining peace and tranquility and in due compliance to the order the parties filed the requisite bonds before the court. During the pendency of the proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Gongeswary Basumatary again filed a petition before the learned Executive Magistrate, where the case was pending, alleging that there was likelihood of breach of peace concerning the possession of the disputed land and acting on that petition vide order dated 26.05.2015, the learned Executive Magistrate without recourse to the provisions of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. proceeded to attach the disputed land u/s 146 of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, the petitioner Gunadar Das preferred the revision before this Court u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the other petitioners, namely, Kantilal Das and Hiralal Das also filed petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of the entire proceedings. 4. Mr. Rajib Dev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the learned Magistrate ought not to have proceeded u/s 146 of the Cr.P.C. without recourse to the provisions of Section 145 of the Code. Since no proceeding u/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. was drawn up the order of attachment passed u/s 146 of the Code is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. Since no proceeding u/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. was drawn up the order of attachment passed u/s 146 of the Code is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. It is next contended that as per the own admission of the respondent the disputed land is in possession of the petitioners and the learned Executive Magistrate ignored this aspect of the case while passing the order for attachment of the disputed land. It is also contended that in the year 1981 the disputed land was sold by the father of the respondent to the petitioners and the occupancy right was transferred to them by executing Deed of Conveyance (Annexure-6). Although a dispute earlier arose between the parties in the year 1983 concerning the land, it was resolved amicably and a Deed of Compromise was executed vide Annexure- 7 which is filed in connection with Criminal Petition No. 531 of 2015. 5. In controversion, Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the proceeding drawn up under section 146 of the Code cannot be brushed aside for non-compliance of section 145 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. The respondent filed the petition u/s 145 of the Code alleging breach of peace regarding possession of the land and due to technical error committed by the learned Magistrate there is no justification for setting aside the order so passed under section 146 of the Code. He further contends that existence of a dispute likely to cause the breach of peace is the essential condition for taking recourse under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. but the learned Magistrate although failed to reflect in the order regarding drawal of the proceeding under section 145 of the Code, he passed the order of attachment apprehending breach of peace and in such a case the only recourse available to the court is to proceed further and take appropriate decision regarding possession of the land. 6. The court while dealing with a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code is mainly concerned with the possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and his possession, if any, within 2 (two) months prior to that date, the court is not required to decide either the title to the property or right of possession of the same. In the present proceeding admittedly no preliminary order under section 145 of the Code was passed by the learned Magistrate and on the basis of the application filed by the respondent he directly proceeded to attach the land under section 146 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, after drawing up the preliminary order it is incumbent on the part of the court to direct the parties to appear before the court and file written statement as contemplated under section 145 of the Code but that has not been done and only direction to the concerned Officer In Charge of the Police Station was passed to attach the disputed land and report compliance. From the very nature of the order passed by the learned Magistrate there is no room for doubt that he passed the order whimsically without having regard to the provisions of law and without affording any opportunity to the parties to file their written statement. Moreover, in the petition filed by the respondents before the court it has been specifically stated that the petitioners were Riyats (Adhiars) of the disputed land under the father of the respondent and they used to share the crops with their father and after his death with the present respondent who was the daughter of the deceased Pitor Singh Basumatary. It is further seen from the application that the respondent with the aid of the villagers tried to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed land and not vice versa. This being the admitted position the learned Magistrate ought not to have passed the order for attachment of the land in question on the petition filed by the respondent. 7. Having regard to the submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case and from all my discussions above, I am of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has committed manifest illegality in passing the order of attachment under section 146 of the Cr.P.C. without recourse to Section 145 of the Code and ignoring the fact of actual possession which admittedly was with the petitioners. Consequently, the order is liable to be set aside and quashed which is accordingly do. 8. Both the petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed of.