Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. While this appeal is, no doubt, preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39133 of 2017 dated 27.11.2017, both Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions from the 2nd respondent, agree that the writ petition itself be heard and decided at the stage of admission.

2. The Learned Single Judge had, before passing the order under appeal, called for the records and noted that there were criminal cases pending against the appellant-writ petitioner. We had also called for the records to satisfy ourselves that the satisfaction of the Tahsildar, that there existed a dispute with respect to the subject land which was likely to cause a breach of peace necessitating an order being passed under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C, was formed on the basis of the material placed before him.

3. Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order of the Tahsildar dated 17.10.2017, (the validity of which is impugned in the Writ Petition), is contrary to Section 145 Cr.P.C; it is an abuse of power, and is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tahsildar who was obligated to record reasons stating the grounds on which he was satisfied that there was a likelihood of breach of peace; action under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. can only be taken on the basis of a police report, to which no reference is made in the impugned order; reference ought to have been made by the Tahsildar to the material based on which he had arrived at the conclusion that there was a likelihood of breach of peace; and, in any event, no order could have been passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C without putting the appellant-writ petitioner on notice, and without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that, as long as the record discloses material to show that there was a likelihood of breach of peace, the mere fact that they have not been referred to in detail in the order of the Tahsildar would not denude him of the power to pass an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C; it is evident from the material on record, based on which the order impugned in the writ petition was passed, that there were three criminal cases pending against the appellant-writ petitioner; FIR No.118 of 2017 explicitly refers to the appellant-writ petitioner having trespassed into the subject land along with his henchmen, to have cut the trees in the land, and to have carried the logs away; the complaint also records the appellant-writ petitioner having threatened the complainant in FIR No.118 of 2017 with dire consequences, if she did not vacate the land; and the material on record suffices for the Tahsildar to arrive at the satisfaction that an order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C was necessary to prevent a breach of peace as a result of the dispute relating to the subject property.

I. SECTION 145 CRPC : ITS SCOPE:

5. Section 145 Cr.P.C prescribes the procedure where a dispute, concerning land or water, is likely to cause breach of peace. Sub-Section (1) thereof stipulates that whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied, from a report of a police officer or upon other information, that a dispute, likely to cause a breach of the peace, exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned, in such a dispute, to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respect to the fact of actual possession of the subject land in dispute.

6. The object of Section 145 CrPC is to maintain law and order, and prevent the breach of peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, and not for evicting any pe