1. Heard finally.

2. Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC challenging ex parte order passed by SDM Chanderi on 16.7.2001, which has been affirmed by Revisional Court vide order dated 29.11, .2002.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed an application before SDM, Chanderi under sections 145 and 146 CrPC. The SDM, Chanderi instead of passing the preliminary order under section 145 CrPC and issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, passed an order under section 146 CrPC and directed for the attachment of the land in dispute and for handing over its possession to third person and thereafter directed for registration of the case as well as for notice to the opposite party. This ex parte order was challenged by the petitioners in a revision but unfortunately learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering this aspect of the matter that the said order is not a legal order as the SDM has not passed any preliminary order under section 145 CrPC and has also not issued any notice to the opposite party before passing order under section 146 CrPC and without hearing them directed attachment of the property and handing over its possession to some other-person, affirmed the said order. The petitioners have challenged both the aforesaid orders in this petition.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the orders are contrary to the provisions of sections 145 and 146 CrPC and they have been passed in violation of the principle of nature justice. Even before issuing order of attachment no preliminary order was passed for taking cognizance under section 145 and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before passing the order of attachment.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners participated in the revision. The revisional Court has considered this aspect of the matter and subsequently by order dated 3.1.2003 affirmed the order of attachment, against which revision was also filed which was also dismissed and the High Court has also dismissed the second revision.

6. Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has not disputed this legal position that the SDM should have first examined whether any dispute under section 145 CrPC has arisen and after passing preliminary order he should have considered the application under section 146 and should have passed the order for attachment of the land after issuing notice to the opposite party and that too after providing opportunity of hearing to them.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, I am of the view that the order passed by SDM, Chanderi dated 16.7.2001 is not legal, as he has not adopted the correct procedure as laid down under the law. There is no finding under section 145 CrPC that he is satisfied from the report of the Police Officer or upon other information that a dispute exists which is likely to cause a breach of the peace over "the land. From the proceedings it is also clear that neither he recorded his satisfication nor received any proper information nor called any police report, nor passed any preliminary order and without following due procedure prescribed under the Law passed an order of attachment.

8. It was mandatory on the part of the SDM to issue notice to the opposite party and to hear him before passing the order of attachment. If he was of the view that there was some emergency and it was necessary to pass attachment order ex parte then he could have issued notice to the other side and he should have invited reply and objection thereon but from the ordersheet dated 16.7.2001 it is not clear that he has followed the procedure laid down under sections 145 and 146 CrPC. In revision it was also the duty of the Additional Sessions Judge to examine the aforesaid question of the legality of the order dated 16.7.2