B.P. Beri, C.J.
1. This is a revision application directed against the judgment of the learned Add. Session judge, Jhalawar, dated September 20, 1971 in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C.
2. Sharafat Ali filed an application under Section 145, Criminal P.C. on July 28, 1869 m the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Eklera saying that in village Daleepur Tehsil Eklera be had agricultural land measuring 31 Bighas and 16 Biswas in his possession and the opposite parties Mst. Chtoti, Azim Hussem, Ranzan and Gul Mohammed had forcibly dispossessed him. Reply was filed on beanie of the opposite parties saying that in the and in dispute there were trees of 'Mauwa' and mangoes, the fruits where of were beeping taken by Mst. Chhoti. They disputed that they had forcibly dispossessed Sharafat Ali. The parties filed their wilted statements, affidavits and certain revenue records. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate after examining the record came to the conclusion that Sharafat Ali was not in possession of the land measuring 5 Bighas 18 Biswas but he was in possession of 25 Bighas is Biswas. He accordingly declared his possession and ordered that he may be put in possession thereof but by way of a proviso he added that the possession of the trees standing on this land was that of Mst. Chhoti and that she would remain in possession thereof until she was evicted in due course of law. Dis-satisfied, Mst Chhoti and Azim Hussain preferred a revision application before the learned Additional Seasions Judge, Jhaiawar who found fault with the case of the applicant Msr. Chhoti that she had not even filed an answer and he saw no reason to disturb the finding reached by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Mst. Cnhoti and Aziaa Hussain are still dis-satisfied and they are before me.
3. Mr. Dave argues tattle order of the learned Magistrate is contradictory and impracticable. He has declared Mst. Chhoti to he in possession of trees but Sharafat Ali to be in possession of land measuring 26 Bighas and 18 Biswas. How could Mst. Chhoti, urged the learned Counsel, take advantage of the fruits of the trees without traveling to the land on which they stand and, therefore, this was a case of joint possession which did not attract the provisions of Section 145, Criminal P.C.
4. No one appears on behalf or Sharafat Ali and others.
5. In a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C. if a Magistrate was satisfied that there is a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning any land and water or boundaries thereof within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction he shall inquire in regard to the possession thereof and decide the question whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the order in such possession of the said subject. According to the extended meaning of the word Land given in Section 145(2) land includes produce of land. Trees are undoubtedly produce of land and for the purpose of attracting jurisdiction under Section 145, Criminal P.C. there can be no doubt that standing trees will also come within the expression 'land' as employed in Section 145, Criminal P.C. Reference in this connection may be made to Mannarghat Moopil Nair and Ors. v. M.C. Chandy and Ors. ILR 1957 Ker 646.
6. Now the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate is that the land is in possession of Sharafar Ali but the trees are in possession of Mst. Chhoti, as it for the purpose of his dentition land was partly in possession of Sharfat Ali and partly in possession of Mst. Chhoti. Such a (sic) will perpetuate dispute rather than solve it. Is appears that it might possibly be a case of joint possession in which ordinarily Section 146, Criminal P.C. is not attracted. The learned magistrate will, therefore, have to examine whether it is a case of joint possession and whether there is a real and genuine apprehension of a breach of the peace between the parties and then decide whether he can really determine the question of possession or for the purpose of question of peace he can put provisions of Section 107, Criminal P.C. A compound order of the manner in which the learned Magistrate has expressed himself is not solution envisaged by the provisions of Section 145, Criminal P.C.
7. I accordingly quash the orders of the learned Magistrate and that of the learned Additional Sessions judge and send this case back to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Eklera to decide it expeditiously.