ORDER :

1. Present petition is against the order dated 21-12-2021 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Cr. Rev.No.52/21 whereby the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Balodabazar dated 12-11-2021 (Anneuxre-P/5) passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner No.1 is claiming himself as bhumiswami of land bearing khasra No.206/54 area 0.162 hectares and khasra No.206/58 area 0.186 hectares, total area admeasuring 0.348 hectares. Likewise, the petitioners No.2 & 3 are also claiming themselves as bhumiswami of land bearing khasra No.273/14 area 1.618 hectares. With regard to their respective claim, the petitioners rely on Form B-1 kistband katoni [year 2019-20] (Annexure-P/1).

3. To consider the said claim of the petitioners, the SDM vide its memo dated 20-10-2021 (Annexure-P/3) directed the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Palari and Station House Officer, Police Station Gidhpuri to submit the enquiry report. In compliance of the same, it was reported that prior to two months of incident the petitioners were in possession of the subject land. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Tameshwar Sahu filed a civil suit bearing No.54-A/2021 and the petitioners Maniram & Nemichand filed a civil suit bearing No.55-A/2021 for declaration of title against the respondents. In the said suits, status quo order was passed on 14-12-2021 (Annexure-P/4). Subsequently, on 12-11-2021 (Annexure-P/5) the SDM has passed the order that since there is a dispute with respect to possession and chance of breach of peace, the crop/paddy was directed to be kept under the custody of Kotwar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that only on apprehension of breach of peace, the order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be passed. There has to be substantial material on record and the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that there was no material on record to show that whether there was any emergency exist or not. Thus, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 while supporting the impugned orders would submit that the land on which the claim is made by the petitioners is, in fact, the Government land and hence the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers annexed with the petition.

7. The order of learned SDM dated 12-11-2021 records that since the petition under Section 145 (1) is pending and without there being any enquiry, no finding can be arrived as to who had sow the crop, as such, since it may lead to dispute, crop of the subject land would be seized. The revisional Court affirmed the said order.

8. With respect to prima facie ownership of the land the petitioners filed revenue document i.e. Form B-1 kistband katoni [year 2019-20] (Annexure-P/1), which records the name of the petitioners. To ascertain the possession over the subject land prior to dispute pursuant to memo dated 20-10-2021 (Annexure-P/3) of the SDM, the enquiry report was submitted on 26-10-2021. Bare reading of the same would manifest that prior to two months of the dispute the subject lands were in possession of the petitioners. The same fact also finds support from the order dated 14-12-2021 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Balodabazar, in a civil suit Nos.54-A/2021 & 55-A/2021 wherein it has been observed that prior to report dated 26-10-2021 the petitioners were in possession of the subject land. Now coming to the order dated 12-11-2021 it shows that the SDM has observed that since the detailed enquiry is required, therefore, at this juncture, the ownership cannot be decided. The order of SDM further records that since the ownership and the crop over the said land may lead to dispute as such there are chances of breach of peace, therefore, the crop be attached.

9. In respect of such attachment of properties whil