V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. Many times, places of worship, to which people go, seeking solace and peace, become places where there is disruption of peace. No place of worship of any particular religion is an exception to this Rule. In 2 out of 3 cases on hand, the dispute relates to places of worship. In one case, the dispute is inter religious and in the other it is intra religious.

Brief facts of the cases on hand

2. In a village known as Panipulanvayal Village, Kannankottai Group, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District, a church known as St. Arokyamary Church was constructed, nearly about 30 years ago, in a huge land of an extent of about 2 acres. The church comes under the control of Sivaganga Diocese.

3. It appears that the conduct of the annual festival in the church became the subject matter of controversy from the year 2007. Proceedings were initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short "the Code") and an order was passed on 15.9.2009.

4. The said order became the subject matter of challenge in a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 9462 of 2010. In the said petition, a learned Judge passed an order on 22.9.2011, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to take cognizance of the dispute and follow the procedure contemplated under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code and thereafter to follow the procedure prescribed under Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 145 of the Code and pass orders.

5. Pursuant to the said order, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices to both parties, held an enquiry and passed a final order, dated 03.10.2011. It was held in the said order that the church in question was under the control of the Sivagangai Diocese till the year 2007 and that after disputes arose, the Diocese stopped its intervention. The Revenue Divisional Officer also found that a civil suit had already been filed in O.S. No. 153 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Devakottai and that therefore, until the disposal of the suit, the Bishop of Devakottai shall look after the administration and the conduct of the festivals as was done till the year 2006-2007.

6. Challenging the final order passed under Section 145 of the Code on 03.10.2011, a revision has been filed in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 863 of 2011 under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.

7. The main ground of attack to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was that the same was passed without complying with the mandatory requirement of a preliminary order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code.

8. But, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the passing of a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code does not give jurisdiction to the Magistrate to initiate and proceed with the enquiry. The moment the Executive Magistrate arrives at a subjective satisfaction (i) that there exists a dispute with regard to land or water and (ii) that such dispute was likely to cause breach of peace, the Executive Magistrate gets jurisdiction and that it does not depend upon whether he made a record of such a subjective satisfaction, with reasons or not.

9. Finding (i) that in a catena of decisions, this Court has held the passing of a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code to be mandatory, (ii) that in none of those judgments, the question of assumption of jurisdiction was ever considered, (iii) that those decisions were based upon a wrong comparison with the provisions of Section 133 of the Code and (iv) that therefore, an authoritative pronouncement on the issue was required from a Larger Bench of this Court, this Reference was made by the learned Judge, by an order dated 10.6.2015, passed in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 863 of 2011. Four questions were referred by the learned Judge for the consideration of this Full Bench and they are as follows:

"(i) Whether the absence o