JUDGMENT : This application in revision by members of the second party in the proceeding is to set aside the ORDER :dated 9. 5. 1972 passed by the Subdis visional Magistrate, Bettiah and to direct him to pay the petitioners the sum of Rs. 1410/- which is lying in deposit in this case as sale proceeds of the crops on the disputed land during the period of its attachment under Section 145 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code'). 2. 1ibe short facts relevant for the present purpose are On the police report dated 17. 2. 1971 the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Bettiah issued rule under Section 144 of the Code in respect of this land. In that proceeding the present opposite parties 1 to 14 were first party whereas these petitioners (5 in number) and opposite parties 15 to 17 figured as second party. Subsequently, on 16.4.1971 the learned Magistrate converted that proceeding into one under Section 145 of the Code and attached the land under Sub-section (4) of this Section along with the standing crops. There is no dispute between the parties that those crops were later harvested by the police under Magistrate's ORDER :and its sale proceeds amounting to Re. 1410/ were deposited in the treasury. It is this money which is the subject matter of present controversy between the parties. 3. After the Magistrate had effected the above conversion and attached the land, these petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 918 of 1972 to this Court. This revision was ultimately heard and disposed of on 3.9.1971 by B. D. Singh, J" who, on consideration of the materials on record, 'quashed the above ORDER :of the Magistrate dated 16.4.1971 with direction that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code, if necessary, should be taken out against the members of the other side. After this decision of the High Court, these petitioners moved the Magistrate for payment of the above sale proceeds of Ra.1410/- to them. The learned Magistrate by his ORDER :dated 19.11.71 directed the Block Development Officer of the area to submit his report on the question as to who had grown these crops. After this decision of the High Court, these petitioners moved the Magistrate for payment of the above sale proceeds of Ra.1410/- to them. The learned Magistrate by his ORDER :dated 19.11.71 directed the Block Development Officer of the area to submit his report on the question as to who had grown these crops. He (Block Development Officer), however, instead of making the enquiry himself entrusted it to his Circle Inspector who submitted a report, which the petitioners have characterised as collusive and false, that they had been grown by the opposite party. After submission of this report of the Circle Inspector, the petitioner again moved the Magistrate that he should recall the enquiry and pay that money (Rs. 1410/-) to them because the High Court held them to be in possession of the land since its delivery of possession effected on 2.7.1966 in their favour and the opposite party had no concern with this land. Though the learned Magistrate under the impugned ORDER :set aside that report of the Circle Inspector but he did not recall the enquiry and again sent the matter to the Block Development Officer for his personal enquiry and report and further dinreted the petitioners to obtain necessary clarification from this Court. It is in this context that the petitioners have filed this revision for quashing the enquiry as ORDER :ed by the Magistrate and payment of the amount to them. 4. Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, bas urged that they have been coming in continuous possession of this land since the actual delivery of possession effected in their favour on 2. 7. 1966 in rule Suit No. 113 of 1959 whose JUDGMENT : had been upheld upto Second Appeal No. 750 of 1964 decided on 18.4.1966. According to him, in the report of that delivery of possession some of these opposite parties, namely, nos. 1,9,12 and brother of opposite party no. 5 bad figured as witnesses. Thereafter they paid the arrears of rent in respect of this land in a certificate proceeding which had been initiated against these petitioners and the mortgagees which the State authority accepted after necessary enquiry regarding their (petitioners') possession. Moreover, these petitioners had supplied sugarcane as grown by them on this land for which they had been paid price by the concerned sugar mill under due receipts. According to Mr. Moreover, these petitioners had supplied sugarcane as grown by them on this land for which they had been paid price by the concerned sugar mill under due receipts. According to Mr. Prasar, after being fully satisfied about their such possession of this land at the relevant time, the learned Judge in the above Criminal Revision No. 918 of 1971 had quashed the aforesaid proceeding under Section 145 between these petitioners and the opposite parties. Regard being had to such finding of pus session in that revision, it was not at all necessary for the Magistrate to again initiate an enquiry of this nature to find out as to who had grown this crop, and he should have straightway on the basis of that JUDGMENT : of this Court allowed the disputed amount to be paid to the petitioners. 5. In reply, Mr. Jai Narayan appearing for the opposite parties nos. 1 to 14 (who have alone contested this application) has urged that there is no infirmity in the Magistrate's impugned ORDER :dated 9. 5. 1972 bec3.use by it he has simply rejected the prayer of these petitioners to review his previous ORDER :dated 19.11.1971 under which he had directed this enquiry through the Block Development Officer. According to him, if the petitioners were dissatisfied with this step of the Magistrate it was necessary on their part to have moved this Court within 90 days of that enquiry ORDER :dated 19.11.1971. But they did not do so and have filed revision on 16.5.1972, which was obviously far beyond the prescribed period. His next contention is that in the above revision decided by the High Court there was no finding of actual possession which had to be arrived at in the proceeding itself after considering the materials furnished by the parties. As such, the Magistrate was fully justified in getting the matter enquired into to fix the person who had actually grown these crops and then allow its disbursement in favour of that person. 6. It is admitted that after this Court had passed ORDER :s in the above Criminal Revision No. 918 of 1971 (as reported in 1972 B. L. J. R. 355 Mathura Singh and others V. Ramakant Missir and others) these opposite parties moved the supreme Court against it in appeal, but it was summarily dismissed. 6. It is admitted that after this Court had passed ORDER :s in the above Criminal Revision No. 918 of 1971 (as reported in 1972 B. L. J. R. 355 Mathura Singh and others V. Ramakant Missir and others) these opposite parties moved the supreme Court against it in appeal, but it was summarily dismissed. A perusal of that revisional ORDER :dated 3.9.1971 shows that the learned Judge had before him the materials as furnished by the parties on record and he was also addressed about them in course of hearing of the application and after having duly considered them concluded in the terms "I have already mentioned earlier that the contesting opposite party have no evidence to prove their possession whereas the petitioners have over• whelming evidence to prove both title as well as possession." It also appears that after applying his mind to the materials on record he decided to quash the Magistrate's ORDER :converting the case into one under Section 145 of the Code. In that view of the matter, it is, perhaps, not quite correct on the part of these opposite parties to cantered now that there was no finding of possession in that JUDGMENT : of this Court. In fact, as that ORDER :stands, it is c1ear that the learned Judge had chosen to set aside that ORDER :mainly because of the presence of over-whelming materials on record to prove that the land was in actual possession of these petitioners at the relevant time. 7. Having regard to such findings in that revision on the point of possession the Magistrate had, I think, no valid reason to get the matter probed again in this matter by directing such an enquiry. As Mr. Thakur Prasad has pointed. cut, an enquiry to this effect by the Magistrate is not only unnecessary but misconceived and may lead to an anomalous result in case the Magistrate on the basis of the enquiry report comes to the conclusion that those crops had been leally raised by these opposite parties, because such a finding on his part will be manifestly in conflict with the aforesaid revisional findings of this Court as to the question of actual possession. 8. After the disposal of the above revision by this Court with clear findings of possession in favour of these petitioners, an ORDER :by the Magistrate regarding the disposal of this amount (Rs. 8. After the disposal of the above revision by this Court with clear findings of possession in favour of these petitioners, an ORDER :by the Magistrate regarding the disposal of this amount (Rs. 1410/.) being the admitted sale proceeds of the crop harvested on the land during that proceeding was merely consequential and hardly required any such enquiry. Since this Court had held their possession over the land during that period the crops concerned will be deemed to have been grown by them so as to be entitled to recover its price in deposit. 9. The two authorities, (1) Karunamoy Mukherjee V. Kalika Prasad Bhadury (A.I.R. 1950 Calcutta 369) and (2) Jamuna Pd. Bhagat V. Ramprit Sah (A. I. R. 1958 Patna 92) relied upon by the opposite parties to justify such an enquiry into the matter by the Magistrate before paying the money, to my mind, do not appear helpful in as much as their facts were distinctly different from the present facts. In this view I do not find it necessary to discuss them. 10. When this enquiry on the part of the Magistrate cannot be justified in law or on fact, for the reasons mentioned above, there can be no question of limitation in this revision merely because it is directed against the ORDER :dated 9.5.1972 and not its previous one dated 19.11.1971. Both of them in their very nature can were be taken as being interconnected in the same connection, I.e., regarding this enquiry which, as already observed, appears misdirected in the circumstances. That being the position, no question of limitation can be involved in this revision which is directed against this' enquiry as a whole and also for ORDER :to secure payment of the deposited amount in the light of the clear findings of possession in their favour in the above revision as recorded by this Court. 11. For the above reasons, this application is allowed and the impugned ORDER :s of the Magistrate regarding this enquiry are set aside. He is further directed to pay the money in deposit, i. e., Rs. 1410/- to these petitioners after observing the required formalities, if any, regarding such withdrawal. Application allowed.