ORDER

R.L. Anand, J. - Present is a revision filed by Sukhwant Singh and Jaswant Singh and it has been directed against the order dated 10th July. 1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Patiala who accepted the revision petition filed by Amarjit Singh and set aside the order dated 24.27 November. 1995 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Patiala who while taking the cognizance of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. came to the conclusion that there existed breach of peace. The Executive Magistrate invoked the emergent provisions under Section 146(1). Cr. P.C. and appointed the Naib Tehsildar as Official Receiver of the land in dispute. The proceedings started on police report filed under Section 145. Cr. P.C. the Executive Magistrate vide order dated 24th-27th November, 1995 case to the conclusion that there was likelihood of the breach of peace with respect to the land comprised in Khasra No. 38 Min. measuring 3 Killas 13 Marlas situated in village- Sehnipur. Sub-Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan. District Patiala and sensing the breach of peace and by invoking the emergent provisions he appointed the Naib Tehsildar. Dudhan Sadhan as a receiver to maintain the suit land. Directions were also given to the Receiver to auction the land and deposit the amount in the Government Treasury. This revision petition I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri Vinay Mittal. Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Arun Sanghi. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Patiala cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Before re-proceed further I would like to reproduce para No.2 of the impugned judgment of Shri O.P. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge. Patiala:

"2. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the case. The Id. counsel for the revision petition has assailed the order of Id. Executive Magistrate on the following grounds:

1. The order passed by the Executive Magistrate is vague as no dimensions or boundaries of the property have been given by the Police or the Id. Magistrate on which the Receiver was going to be appointed.

2. There was a civil litigation pending between the parties and stay had been granted to the revision-petitioner before filing of the calendra u/s 145 Cr. P.C. and as such the criminal proceedings could not be initiated.

3. The impugned order was passed without hearing the counsel for the parties and without considering the documents filed by the petitioner in a hasty manner.

3. After hearing both the sides and going through the record of the case. I find force in the arguments of the Id. counsel for the Revisions Petitioner. The impugned order dated 24-11-1995 passed by the Executive Magistrate goes to show that the description of boundaries of the area measuring 3 Kanals 13 MarIas have not been given in this order. Similarly, the order u/s 146 Cr. P.C. issued on the basis of this order also goes to show that the boundaries or the other description regarding this area has not been given for that reason the order is vague. It is also not disputed that a civil litigation is pending, between the parties. The Revision petitioner Amarjit Singh has filed a suit against party No.1 which is pending before the Sub Judge 1st Class, Patiala, and in that case, stay has already been granted before the start of the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. it is further alleged that the land measuring, 24 Kanals 4 Marlas was allotted to Lakshmi Devi and others and the petitioner is their attorney. Assa Bai and other predecessor-in-interest of No.1 Challenged the allotment of Lakshmi Devi before the Hon'ble Court but their petition was dismissed. Suit filed by them was also withdrawn later on. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has cited Ram Sumair Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others1, in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held