The SDM has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145(1) of the CrPC and to attach the property under Section 146(1) if he is unable to decide who was in possession of the disputed land.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) prayer has been made by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings under Ss. 145/146 of the Code pending in the court of SDM Shahdara in respect of land measuring about 1000 sq. yds out of Khasra No. 13/4 in village Kotla, Shahdara.

( 2 ) IN brief the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Bharat Singh respondent No. 4 on his own behalf arid on behalf of Harijans of Village Kotia moved an application to the S. H. O. , Police Station Trilok Puri slating therein that the disputed land was given to the Harijans for construction of Panchalyatghar and Badle and others have been trying to take forcible possession of this land. Arequest was made that Badle and others may be stopped from making any encroachment and to avoid any untoward incident. After enquiry a report was submitted by S. H. Q. P. S. Trilokpuri to the SDM Shahdara. It was, inter alia, stated that land bearing kharsa No. 13/4 was lying vacant in village Kotla and towards its North there was the house of Bharat Singh while towards South there were the rooms of Babu s/o Badle and towards West there was a gali and some houses. It was further stated that the Harijans have been claiming that this land was given to them for the construction of a religious place while Badle and others have been claiming to be in possession of the same and that there is a dispute between the parties. It was also stated therein that an apprehension of breach of peace was imminent.

( 3 ) LEARNED SDM after perusal of the report and the complaint of Bharat Singh and after due satisfaction passed an order under Sec. 145 of the Code on 28th February, 1989 and gave notice to the parties requiring them to put in their written statements and documentary proof as to the fact of actual possession of the disputed plot.

( 4 ) ON the same date after perusal of the police report and giving a hearing to Bharat Singh, first party, the learned SDM came to the conclusion that he was satisfied that it was a case of grave emergency and there was an imminent danger of breach of peace between the parties over the possession of the disputed plot and so passed an order under Sec. 146 (1) of the Code and thereafter attached the disputed plot.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned SDM has exceeded his jurisdiction and there was no occasion for him to initiate the proceedings under S. 145 (1) of the Code. He has also submitted that in fact there is a decision of the Court of competent jurisdiction holding that the petitioners have been in possession of the disputed plot and in these circumstances there was hardly and occasion for the SDM to initiate proceedings. He has referred a copy of the order dated 31st May, 1974 of Shri S. P. Prabhakar, Revenue Assistant, Delhi who passed an order of ejectment under Sec. 86 (A) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act against Badle and others in respect of land bearing K-hasra No. 13, min. measuring 8 bighas 10 biswas. He has then placed reliance upon order dated 5th October, 1974 of Shri G. C. Srivastava, Addl. Collector, Delhi who accepted the appeal and the order of the Revenue Assistant was set aside. He has also submitted that a revision filed by Gaon Sabha against the order of the Addl. Collector was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 24th November, 1978 and in this way there is a positive finding by the competent court that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed premises. However, it is to be noted that the aforesaid proceedings were inrespect of Khasra No. 13, min. measuring 8 big. 10 bis. while the present dispute is in respect of land measuring about 1000 sq. yds. out of Khasra No. 13/4. It is worthwhile to note that unless the petitioners are in a position to satisfy that the present disputed plot forms part of the area covered by the aforesaid litigation they cannot claim any benefit in t