1. The two rules having been heard together' are disposed of under this judgment, These rules are directed against an initial order dated 9-9-1968 passed by Mr. J. Ahmad, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dacca (South) drawing up a proceeding under section 145 (l), Cr. P. C. Che Rule No. 704 of 1968 has been obtained by some of the embers of the third party and the Rule No. 309 of 1969 has been obtained by one of the members of the second party in the pro--ceeding.
2. The first party Abu Nasar Ahmed along with others is the opposite-party in both the rules.
3. The first party filed a petition with the police at Lalbagh P. S. Alleging that the second party men with the help of their tenants, the third party in the proceeding, were disturbing the peaceful possession of the first party in Plot No. 67 holding Nos. 139 and 142 and were also threatening to dispossess him forcibly from some part of the said plot and as a result, there had been an apprehension of serious breach of the peace between the parties over the possession of the said land. The local police enquired into the matter and submitted a report supporting the allegations of the first party and recommending to draw up a proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on satisfaction from the police report that there was an appre-- hension of breach of the peace between the parties over the possession of the disputed land, drew up a proceeding on ,OL9-1968 under section 145 (1). Cr. P. C. Restraining the parties and asking them to submit written statements. He also attached the disputed land and appointed the Circle Inspector of Police, Lalbagh as receiver of the came with direction to take possession of the land in question. One of the second party men appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the next day i. e. On 10-9-19618 and submitted a petition raising certain objection to the attachment of the land and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by an order dated 10-9-1968 directed the Circle Inspector of; Police, Lalbagh not to take charge of the property until further order. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then personally went to the spot and inspected the disputed site on 14-9-1968 and directed the Circle Inspector of Police, Lalbagh to take possession of the land' as per his order dated 9-9-1968. The impugned order dated 9-9-1968 and the two connected orders dated 10-9- 1968 and 14-9-1968 run as follows: - "9-9-1968: Seen police report under section 144, Cr. P. C. With prayer to take action under section 145, Cr. P. C. Over the disputed land. I am satisfied that there is apprehension of breach of peace over the land in question.
4. Draw up proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. Attaching the land in question. C. I. Of Police, Lalbagh is appointed as the receiver. To 9-10-1968 for W. S. (Sd.) G. Khan, Magistrate 1st Class.
5. 10-9-1968: Seen the petition of the O.'P. I would like to inspect the site on 14-9-1968 at 4 p. m. In the meantime C. I. Of Police, Lalbagh may not take charge of the properties. Inform him accordingly.
6. (Sd.) J. AHMED, S. D. O. (S).
7. 14-9-1968: Inspected the disputed site in presence of the parties. The order dated 9-9-1968 stands.
8. C. I. Of Police, Lalbagh will please take action as per order dated 9-9-1968. To date.
9. (Sd.) J. AHMED S. D. O. (S)."
10. Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. Empowers a Magistrate, 1st Class to draw up a proceeding on satisfaction from the police report or other information that dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists concerning any land. In the instant case, the police sub--mitted a report that there was an apprehension of serious breach of the peace between the parties over the possession of the dis-- puted land. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate drew up the proceeding on satisfaction from the police report as to the existence or breach of the peace. The order dated 9-9-1968 as quoted above, is thus quite in conformity with law and it suffers from no legal defect. .
11. The basic condition for a proceeding under section 145, is the existence of a dispute between the parties concerning any land. The police report supplies the materials for satisfaction of the Magistrate. The order being based on police report, it is not necessary to record further the grounds of satisfaction for drawing up the proceeding. An imminent danger of breach of peace being present, the proceeding under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. Has rightly been drawn up by the learned Magistrate. The grievance that the initial order does not contain any reasons has thus no substance.
12. It has been contended on behalf of the third-party-petitioners that they as tenants under the second party were carrying on business in the sheds constructed thereon by the second party and their running business-shops could not be attached or taken possession of by police and those should be returned to them. The question as to whether the third party members were carrying on business in the sheds constructed by the second party B and whether they had their running business there, is a matter to be decided by evidence and it cannot be decided at this stage without any legal materials on record.
13. The first party filed a petition supported by affidavit on 23-10-1968 before this Court. In-that petition the first party also claimed that he constructed some sheds there and his tenants were carrying on business in those semi-pucca sheds but the police had taken possession of those shops and blocked their business and those shops should be released from attachment. This assertion of the first party cannot also be decided here without legal evidence.
14. The contesting parties ought to have agitated this question to the Court of the Magistrate. The conflicting claims of the parties require investigation and cannot be decided here without proper inquiry. All the parties have made a grievance that the police cannot take possession of the running shops and the tenants should be allowed to carry on business. But if the police report as to the serious apprehension of breach of peace is true, the presence of the tenants of two rival parties in the disputed land may aggravate the situation and the possibility of further troubles cannot be altogether ignored. If the tenants of the contesting parties are allowed to continue, the dispute between the parties may take a serious turn. In this view of the matter, if the police, in order to maintain the law and order situation, take into posses--sion even the shops including the movables in pursuance of the Court's initial order, it cannot be said that the action of the police, in the circumstances, was absolutely wrong. There is, of course, no legal evidence here to show that the police actually took possession of the shops and blocked the running business of the tenants of the contesting parties.
15. In the circumstances, I find no substance in these rules and they must fail.
16. Mr. Akhtaruddin Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the second-party-petitioner has pointed out that the first party has no right, title and claim in holding No. 139 of Plot No. 67 and that being so, the attachment of the land in holding No. 139 was not at all justified. In the petition dated 23-10-1968 filed before this Court the first party seemed to have claimed right, title and interest only in holding No. 142. The area of the land as shown in the proceeding drawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the petition dated 23-10-1968 is, however, the same. Be that as it may, if the first party puts no claim in holding No. 139 and if no dispute in relation thereto exists, the aggrieved party may draw the attention of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to it and the learned Magistrate may consider the desirability of excluding that holding from the attachment.
17. The action under section 145 is purely of preventive nature and the proceeding is of summary type and it is essential that it should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Since both the parties have made grievance that the shops of their tenants had been blocked and their running business were on the verge of ruination, I think, I should direct that the proceeding should be disposed of expeditiously and if possible within three months from the date of receipt of the records.
18. All the three parties have assured to file written statements within ten days of the arrival of the records to the lower Court.
19. The rules are accordingly discharged. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the enquiry and dispose of the pro--ceeding as expeditiously as possible.
20. The records of the case be sent down at once.