JUDGMENT : (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs : (i) Issue an appropriate writ thereby quash and set aside the order dated 23.9.2022, passed by the respondent in Criminal Case No.2/2022 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ thereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No.197/2022. (iii) Considering the facts of the case matter may be kindly remanded to the office of respondent No.2 for fresh disposal after considering all the issues involved in case and as stated in the petition. (iv) Saddle costs of the petition upon the respondents and; (v) Grant any other relief as deems fit in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under : Ghansham Mahadeorao Dahane was the owner of agricultural land at Mouza Ruikhairi, Taluka Nagpur bearing Survey No.20, admeasuring 2.36 H.R. In 2002, he sold the said land admeasuring 0.81 Hec.R to Vijaykumar Parate and, therefore, Survey No.20 divided into two parts. As per the said division Suvey No.20/1 which was remaining land of Ghansham admeasuring 1.45 HR and Survey No.20/2 was in respect of land sold to Vijaykumar Parate admeasuring 0.81 HR. 0.10 HR area which was in possession of the original owner Ghansham was not mentioned in any revenue record though he was in possession of the said portion. The original owner have measured the land in the year 2002 through T.I.L.R. As 0.10 HR land was not mentioned in the name of owner, he again applied for measurement on 15.6.2004. After measurement original owner Ghansham sold Suvey No.1.45 HR to respondent No.1 Bollineni Venkat Ramanyya, as a Director of Kakatiya Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad by registered sale-deed. The respondent No.1 accordingly was in possession of 1 Hectare 45 R. As per the contention of the petitioners, respondent No.1 was also intending to purchase 0.10 HR and entered into an agreement but original owner who was in possession of 0.10 R has sold out the same to the present petitioners. Prior to executing sale-deed said Ghansham initiated process to record his name in revenue record as far as 0.10 R is concerned. Prior to executing sale-deed said Ghansham initiated process to record his name in revenue record as far as 0.10 R is concerned. The Sub- Divisional Officer passed an order on 20.8.2018 and directed Tahsildar to take entry in the name of legal heirs of Ghansham. The legal heirs of Ghansham executed sale-deed in favour of petitioners to the extent of 0.10 R on 3.9.2020. Accordingly, the name of the petitioners recorded in 7/12 extract and possession was handed over. The petitioners developed said land. 4. It is alleged that as respondent No.1 willing to purchase said portion but the company could not purchase, he filed a report against the present petitioners on 7.2.2022 alleging that present petitioners are attempting to disturb the peaceful possession and committing the breach of peace. By taking cognizance of the said report Police Station Officer submitted report to Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer respondent No.2 initiated proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and restrained the petitioners from disturbing the possession of respondent No.1 without considering that petitioners are also co-owners by passing order on 27.6.2022. The petitioners had challenged the impugned order dated 14.7.2020 by preferring revision before the District Judge, Nagpur bearing Criminal Revision No.197/2022 which was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 23.9.2022. Hence, this petition. 5. The said petition is opposed by the respondent No.1 as well as by the State. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the material facts and on the sole ground the writ petition deserves to be rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioners had suppressed order dated 20.8.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional officer, Nagpur by which the possession of the respondent No.1 was protected and confirmed. Thus, the possession of respondent was always protected and which has attained finality. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer never challenged by the petitioners. It is further contended that the petitioners made an attempt to disturb the possession of respondent No.1 and, therefore, the respondent No.1 filed the complaint before the Police Authorities and Police Authorities by taking cognizance of the same submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional officer and, therefore, the order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure is passed. 6. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also strongly opposed the said petition on the ground that as per Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 leaving the area of 0.10 R is not permissible in the eyes of law. The measurement-sheet in case of 272/2002 dated 8.3.2002 prepared by the T.I.L.R. office Hingna had given their endorsement about process which could not be completed due to encroachment made by the petitioner upon the adjacent land bearing No.90 and, therefore, old measurement case No.20/2001 kept for identification. Though the petitioner has submitted that he is in possession since 2012 but the agreement of sale does not create any right and interest over the disputed land and sale-deed was executed after eight years in favour of petitioners which created the suspicion about the transaction. It is further submitted that as the petitioners with ill-intention caused the disturbance to the original land owner, the land owner apply for rectification of land but the petitioners are creating disturbance which is causing disturbance to the peace and, therefore, the Police machinery set in motion and referred the matter to the respondent No.2. A preliminary inquiry discloses that there is likely to cause a breach of peace and, therefore, the order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and hence no interference is called for. 7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record it reveals that there is no dispute as to the fact that one Vijaykumar Parate has purchased 0.81 HR from Survey No.20 and respondent No.1 has purchased 1.45 HR from the original owner. The dispute is as to 0.10 HR which according to the petitioner he had purchased by way of registered sale-deed. It is submitted by the petitioners that the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order dated 20.8.2018 and directed the Tahsildar to take entry in the name of legal heirs of Ghansham and thereafter legal heirs of Ghansham executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners. The 7/12 extract annexed alongwith sale-deed dated 3.9.2020 of the petitioners shows that the petitioner was aware about the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer since inception. The said order was part and parcel of the record of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur, who has passed the impugned order. The 7/12 extract annexed alongwith sale-deed dated 3.9.2020 of the petitioners shows that the petitioner was aware about the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer since inception. The said order was part and parcel of the record of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur, who has passed the impugned order. The petitioners have deliberately suppressed the said order from this Court and attempted to take unfair advantage from this Court. The registered sale- deed dated 28.9.2006 was executed in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of 1.45 HR in Khasra No.20/1. At the relevant time 7/12 extract were independent in respect of said Khasra No.20/1. Thus, possession and boundaries of the respondent No.1 were confirmed. The learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Nagpur (Gramin) passed an order on 20.8.2018 thereby holding that without disturbing the possession and boundaries of Mr. Vijaykumar Parate and respondent, the predecessor of applicant i.e. Dashrath Dahane is allowed to take possession of 0.10 HR land. By way of registered sale-deed dated 3.9.2020 the applicant become owner of land admeasuring 0.10 HR. At the relevant time the revenue record i.e. entire Khasra No.20/1 and 20/2, admeasuring about 1.45 HR and 0.81 HR were respectively belonging to Vijaykumar Parate and respondent No.1. In the light of above documentary evidence the Sub-Divisional Officer concluded in the impugned order that when the boundaries and possession of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Vijaykumar Parate is confirmed by earlier order dated 20.8.2018. The said boundaries and possession of the said two owners could not be allowed to be disturbed. The above mentioned impugned order was upheld by the Sessions Court. Thereafter also an illegal act on the part of the petitioners was to take illegal possession of the area 0.10 HR land by disturbing the possession of respondents which created various difficulties to the respondents as well as the owner of the adjacent land owner Mr. Vijaykumar Parate. The entire boundaries mentioned in both the sale-deeds which were executed in favour of Vijaykumar Parate and respondent as per the then prevalent sub-division 7/12 extract, shall be rendered incorrect. The attempt of the petitioners to take possession of 0.10 HR by disturbing possession of respondent No.1 as a breach of peace in the given locality. Vijaykumar Parate. The entire boundaries mentioned in both the sale-deeds which were executed in favour of Vijaykumar Parate and respondent as per the then prevalent sub-division 7/12 extract, shall be rendered incorrect. The attempt of the petitioners to take possession of 0.10 HR by disturbing possession of respondent No.1 as a breach of peace in the given locality. He has not only disturb the possession but he has also removed the flex which was affixed in the name of respondent No.1 and thus disturbed the public peace in the locality and, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer directing not to disturb the possession of respondent No.1 and Vijaykumar Parate. 8. Section 145 of the Criminal procedure Code is the part of Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 dealing with maintenance of public order and tranquility. Section 145 of the Criminal procedure Code is the part of of sub-chapter (D) dealing of with dispute as to immovable property. Besides Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code Sections 146, 147 and 148 of the Criminal procedure Code are also part of Sub-Chapter (D) of Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is found that the disputes as to the land and water often results in breach of peace, violence and blood shed, the Executive Magistrate have been empowered under Section 145-148 to intervene at an interim stage of such a dispute and to compel the disputants to have recourse to legal remedies. If, upon a report of a Police Officer or upon other information, an Executive Magistrate is satisfied that a dispute concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof exists within his jurisdiction, and that such dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace, he shall make an order in writing requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend to his Court on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their claims regarding the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. While making such order, the Magistrate shall state the grounds for his satisfaction referred to above. While making such order, the Magistrate shall state the grounds for his satisfaction referred to above. The very foundation of the jurisdiction of a Magistrate in cases under Section 145 is based on the existence of a dispute giving rise to apprehension of breach of peace and as soon as such apprehension ceases to exists or if it never existed, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed with the case ceases and the only order he has to pass is to drop the proceedings. The inquiry under Section 145(4) is limited to the question of actual possession on the relevant date and is not concerned with the claims and merits all the parties in regard to the right to possess the subject of dispute. If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was in 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 disturbances of such possession until such eviction. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.H. Bhutani Vs. Miss Mani J. Desai and others, Judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 1968, on 23.4.1968 and held that the object of Section 145, no doubt is to prevent breach of peace and for that end to provide a speedy remedy by bringing the parties before the Court and ascertaining who of them was in actual possession and to maintain status-quo until their rights are determined by a competent Court. The section requires that the Magistrate must be satisfied before initiating the proceedings that a dispute, regarding an immovable property exists and that such dispute is likely to cause breach of peace. But once he is satisfied of these two conditions, the section requires him to pass a preliminary order under sub-section (1) and thereafter to make an inquiry under sub-Section (4) and pass a final order under sub- Section (6). It is not necessary that at the time of passing final order the apprehension of breach of peace should continue or - exist. The enquiry under Section 145 is limited to the question as to who was in actual possession on the date of preliminary order irrespective of the rights of the parties. It is not necessary that at the time of passing final order the apprehension of breach of peace should continue or - exist. The enquiry under Section 145 is limited to the question as to who was in actual possession on the date of preliminary order irrespective of the rights of the parties. Under the second proviso, the party who is found to have forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next preceding the date of the preliminary order may for the purpose of the enquiry be deemed to have been in possession on the date of that order. The opposite party may of course prove the dispossession took place more than two months next preceding the date of that order and in that case the Magistrate would have to cancel his preliminary order. On the other hand, if he is satisfied that dispossession was both forcible and wrongful and took place within the prescribed period, the party dispossessed would be deemed to be in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order and the Magistrate would then proceed to make his final order directing dispossessor to restore possession and prohibit him from interfering with the possession until the applicant is evicted in due course of law. This is broadly the scheme of Section 145. 10. What is imperative is the satisfaction under sub-section (1) of the Magistrate. The question whether on the material before him, he should initiate proceeding or not is, therefore, in his discretion which, no doubt has to be exercised in accordance with well recognized rules of law in that behalf. There are no hard and fast rules laid down as to the sufficiency of material on the basis of which Magistrate has to record his satisfaction. The language of sub-section is clear and unambiguous that he can arrive at his satisfaction both from Police report or from other information which must include an application by the party dispossessed. 11. Thus, Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers that if the Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of the Police Officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof within his local jurisdiction, he can pass appropriate orders. 11. Thus, Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers that if the Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of the Police Officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof within his local jurisdiction, he can pass appropriate orders. Primarily proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is taken to maintain peace, law and order and not to decide the title of the property which the Civil Court alone is competent to do. Scope of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to pass a temporary order, when there is a dispute over a property which gives rise to cause for breach of peace. 12. Reverting back to the case in hand, at the instance of complaint filed by the respondent No.1 Police initiated the action indicating breach of peace and law and order, preliminary inquiry was conducted though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executive Magistrate has failed to arrive at a subjective satisfaction in respect of the dispute and also about the likelihood of causing breach of peace which is not sustainable as the learned Executive Magistrate has considered the events that the petitioners were involved not only encroaching over the portion but also removed the flex which was affixed by the respondent No.1 and also observed that as far as the claim of the petitioners are concerned regarding 0.10 Hectare which cannot be at the middle portion of the land and, therefore, the primary order of keeping a peace and to maintain peace and law and order situation restrained the petitioners from interfering the possession of one Atul Pandurang Deulkar and respondent No.1. The reason assigned by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur is that both the parties have claimed right and unless and untill it is decided there should be an order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention of the petitioners that impugned order does not satisfy the procedure contemplated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that there is a violations of the principles of natural justice is not sustainable. From the impugned order it could be deduced that the Executive Magistrate has conducted an inquiry, by giving opportunity to all the parties and then issued the order. From the impugned order it could be deduced that the Executive Magistrate has conducted an inquiry, by giving opportunity to all the parties and then issued the order. There is no manifest illegality in the impugned order warranting the inference. 13. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed accordingly. 14. Rule discharged. Writ Petition is dismissed.