7. From a reading of the above provision, enquiry procedure is contemplated where dispute in respect of land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. In the F.I.R., the Station House Officer observed that there is likelihood of breach of peace and the first party i.e., revision petitioner herein is in possession of the property but the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate gave contrary findings stating that the second party i.e., first respondent herein is in possession of the subject property and entitled to retain such possession. In the last para of the order, Sub-Divisional Magistrate requested the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town V, Nizamabad to take consequential action and handover physical possession to the second party. If really, second party is in possession of the property, there is no need to make such order requesting the Station House Officer to handover physical possession. This aspect would clinchingly show that second party is not in possession of the property which supports the averment in the F.I.R. As seen from the proceedings of the SubDivisional Magistrate, he has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before passing such order. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the advocate for revision petitioner, the findings of the SubDivisional Magistrate in respect of possession of the land in favour of second party i.e., first respondent herein is liable to be set aside and he should be directed to decide
