ORDER : 1. Present petition is against the order dated 21-12-2021 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Cr. Rev.No.52/21 whereby the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Balodabazar dated 12-11-2021 (Anneuxre-P/5) passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner No.1 is claiming himself as bhumiswami of land bearing khasra No.206/54 area 0.162 hectares and khasra No.206/58 area 0.186 hectares, total area admeasuring 0.348 hectares. Likewise, the petitioners No.2 & 3 are also claiming themselves as bhumiswami of land bearing khasra No.273/14 area 1.618 hectares. With regard to their respective claim, the petitioners rely on Form B-1 kistband katoni [year 2019-20] (Annexure-P/1). 3. To consider the said claim of the petitioners, the SDM vide its memo dated 20-10-2021 (Annexure-P/3) directed the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Palari and Station House Officer, Police Station Gidhpuri to submit the enquiry report. In compliance of the same, it was reported that prior to two months of incident the petitioners were in possession of the subject land. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Tameshwar Sahu filed a civil suit bearing No.54-A/2021 and the petitioners Maniram & Nemichand filed a civil suit bearing No.55-A/2021 for declaration of title against the respondents. In the said suits, status quo order was passed on 14-12-2021 (Annexure-P/4). Subsequently, on 12-11-2021 (Annexure-P/5) the SDM has passed the order that since there is a dispute with respect to possession and chance of breach of peace, the crop/paddy was directed to be kept under the custody of Kotwar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that only on apprehension of breach of peace, the order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be passed. There has to be substantial material on record and the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that there was no material on record to show that whether there was any emergency exist or not. Thus, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 while supporting the impugned orders would submit that the land on which the claim is made by the petitioners is, in fact, the Government land and hence the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers annexed with the petition. 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers annexed with the petition. 7. The order of learned SDM dated 12-11-2021 records that since the petition under Section 145 (1) is pending and without there being any enquiry, no finding can be arrived as to who had sow the crop, as such, since it may lead to dispute, crop of the subject land would be seized. The revisional Court affirmed the said order. 8. With respect to prima facie ownership of the land the petitioners filed revenue document i.e. Form B-1 kistband katoni [year 2019-20] (Annexure-P/1), which records the name of the petitioners. To ascertain the possession over the subject land prior to dispute pursuant to memo dated 20-10-2021 (Annexure-P/3) of the SDM, the enquiry report was submitted on 26-10-2021. Bare reading of the same would manifest that prior to two months of the dispute the subject lands were in possession of the petitioners. The same fact also finds support from the order dated 14-12-2021 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Balodabazar, in a civil suit Nos.54-A/2021 & 55-A/2021 wherein it has been observed that prior to report dated 26-10-2021 the petitioners were in possession of the subject land. Now coming to the order dated 12-11-2021 it shows that the SDM has observed that since the detailed enquiry is required, therefore, at this juncture, the ownership cannot be decided. The order of SDM further records that since the ownership and the crop over the said land may lead to dispute as such there are chances of breach of peace, therefore, the crop be attached. 9. In respect of such attachment of properties while dealing in a matter under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2013 (3) SCC 366 has laid down the principle at paras 10 & 11 of the judgment which are as under : (10) The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145 (1) of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be a material on record before Magistrate when the submission of the parties is filed, documents produced or evidence adduced. (11) We find from this case there is nothing to show that an emergency exists so as to invoke Section 146(1) and to attach the property in question. A case of emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of peace. When the reports indicate that one of the parties is in possession, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency…... 10. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it shows that under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether any ‘emergency exists’ before he passes an order of attachment. In a case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere plea of apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency and further observed that there must be a material on record before Magistrate when the submission of the parties filed, documents produced or evidence adduced. 11. Reading of impugned order shows that only on apprehension of a breach of peace, the order dated 12-11-2021 has been passed by the SDM whereby crops have been attached. Even the revisional Court also failed to appreciate the necessary ingredients in its true perspective, as has been stated supra. Accordingly, both the orders dated 12-11-2021 (Annexure-P/5) and 21-12-2021 (Annexure-P/6) are quashed. 12. In the result, the present Cr.M.P. is allowed. The attached crop be returned to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.