The responsibility to carry the case for decision to the competent civil court lies with the parties, and the Magistrate is not required to make a reference in that behalf.

1. - The facts giving rise to this application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are like this: Bhonrey Lal and Babu Lal filed a complaint under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate,Behror that they are the khatedar tenants of 4 Bighas and 19 Biswas of land in village Pipli Khasra Nos. 653, 666 and 668. But the opposite party namely Bhanwar Singh and others were determined to take forcible possession of the said land. There is a dispute which is likely to cause breach of peace. They also prayed that the property be attached and a receiver be appointed thereof.

2. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate obtained a report from the Station House Officer, who reported that both the parties were likely to commit breach of peace over the possession of the aforesaid land. On 9.9.74 the learned Magistrate made a preliminary order. He also considered it a case of emergency, attached the property and appointed the Tehsildar Behror to be the receiver thereof. He further directed that if there was any standing crop it may be sold by public auction. A revision was taken in the court of sessions Alwar against this order. The learned Sessions Judge by its order dated 30.1.75 made the following observations and directions:-

(1) The matter of emergency is one for the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned;

(2) The Magistrate took upon himself the responsibility to decide the question of possession whereas he ought to have referred the matter to the competent Civil Court;

(3) The petitioners appeared to have cultivated the gram crop standing on the field and they should be allowed to harvest the same;

(4) The matter of possession should be referred to a competent civil court for decision according to law.

3. These observations and directions are challenged in this petition. I have heard arguments and considered the matter.

4. The learned Sessions Judge's order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to law. He cannot issue a direction that the Magistrate should refer the case to the competent court for decision, as according to law as it stands after the new Code has come into operation, the position is that it is for the parties to carry their case for decision to the competent civil court. The Magistrate is not required to make a reference in that behalf. Moreover, having held that the Magistrate has rightly attached the land he could not have directed that the standing crop be harvested by one party or the other. This therefore,appears to be a casein which this court should intervene in order to secure the ends of justice and to correct the directions which are patently incorrect.

5. I, therefore, accept this application and quash the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. No further directions appear to be called for.

*******