D.S. Dave, J.
1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated the 31st October, 1961. It relates to a peculiar case of its own kind, because the parties arrayed against each other are the Gram Panchayat Godawas and the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana.
2. On the 19th of April, 1961, the Station House Officer, Neem-ka-Thana presented a report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana for taking proceedings under Section 145, Cri. P. C. against the said parties. The Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana was named as Party No. 1 and the Gram Panchayat Godawas was named as Party No. 2. It was stated in the said report that both the parties were holding cattle fairs at a place called Jodla Johra at Neem-ka-Thana, that since both the parties wanted to hold fairs on the same dates, there was a likelihood of the breach of peace, that a separate report to bind down both the parties for keeping peace was already made under Section 107, Cri. P. C. and that another proceeding under section 145, Cri P. C. should also be taken against them.
This report was forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the Magistrate First Class, Neem-ka-Thana, on 20-4-61. On 21-4-61, the said Magistrate drew up a preliminary order and directed both the parties to put in their written statements. At the same time, he passed an order for the attachment of the property in dispute and appointed the Tehsildar, Neem-ka-Thana, as receiver and directed him to take into his possession the papers relating to the sale of the cattle.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the Gram Pan-chavat Presented a revision application which was heard by the Additional Sessions Tudge, Sikar. The learned Judge has reported that the dispute between the parties did not relate to a particular piece of land, that both of them had their separate mela, camps and the real controversy between them was about attracting the customers to their respective camps. In his opinion, the learned Magistrate was not correct in proceeding under Section 145, Cri. P C. and the proper thing for him was to take action under Section 147, Cri. P. C. He has recommended that the Magistrate should be directed to convert the proceedings into one under Section 147, Cri. P. C. and to return the movables attached by him.
4. Nobody has appeared in this Court on behalf of the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana.
5. Learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat Godawas has urged that the land called Joala Johra was in fact a piece or grass-laud which was included in the Parcha Chukbandi at Nos. 127 and 218 of Swami Motidas, that Swami Motidas had permitted the Gram Panchayat to hold the fair on this land as usual, that the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana, ought not to have held any fair on that land, and that in any case the members of the Panchayat had made it clear to the Magistrate that there was no apprehension of breach of peace on their part and therefore the Magistrate ought not to have proceeded under Section 145. Cri. P. C. He had no authority to take into his possession the receipts and the cash box belonging to the Gram Panchayat. It is further urged by him that no order of this Court for conversion of the proceedings is any more necessary, because the fair ended in April, 1961.
6. From the perusal of the record I find that when the police report was made for proceedings under Section 145, Cri. P. C. an application was presented on behalf of the Gram Panchayat that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. In spite of this plea, the Magistrate did not make it clear in his preliminary order how he apprehended breach of peace between the Gram Panchayat, Godawas, and the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana. Both of them were local bodies being different arms of the same Government, and they could not possibly cammit breach of peace. If it was apprehended that any member or particular members of the Municipal Board or if any member or particular members of the Gram Panchayat were to commit breach of peace, the proper course should have been to bind them down for keeping peace. The proceedings under Section 145, Cri. P. C. were obviously ill-conceived. The legislature has armed the Magistrate with powers under section 145, Cri. P. C. to proceed when there is an apprehension of breach of peace about the possession of a certain immovable property between private parties. This provision is not meant for deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction between two different local bodies. Moreover, when an application was presented before the Magistrate on behalf of the Gram Panchayat that there was no apprehension of breach of peace, there was all the more reason for the Magistrate not to proceed under Section 145, Cri. P. C.
7. I agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the Magistrate had committed an error in proceeding under Section 145, Cri. P. C. There was no sense in making an order of attachment when , the fair was already on. Moreover, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach any movable property under Section 145, Cri. P. C. It was absolutely wrong on his part to order the Tehsilar to seize the papers and cash-box of the Gram Panchayat or of the Municipal Board.
8. At the same time, I do not agree with the learned Additional Sessions judge that the proceeding should be ordered to be converted under Section 147, Cri. P. C. That section contemplates disputes likely to cause a breach of the peace regarding any right of user of any land or water within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. There was no dispute between the two local bodies about their right to use the land of the other party. At any rate, the lair has already ended as pointed out by learned counsel for party No. 2 and therefore it is unnecessary to continue any proceedings whatsoever.
9. The reference is therefore partly allowed.The order passed by the Magistrate on 21-4-61 isset aside. He should return the moveable properties attached by him from the possession of thetwo parties immediately to their respective possession.