JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - This disputed properties constitute A.1.30 decimals and are situate in plot Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of Khata No. 181 in village Bangore. The Petitioner (member of the first party) is a displaced person from Hadgarh Project area. His case is that he was allowed by the Collector to cultivate the disputed properties pending his application for lease. Since 1962 the Petitioner improved the disputed land and has been cultivating the same by raising paddy thereon. Benudhar Prusty, opposite party No. 2, is the Sarpanch of he Bangore Grama Panchayat. Opposite party No. 1 is Banshidhar Sahu who claims to be the lessee of the land. Both of them constitute the second party members. Their case is that the disputed lands constituted a tank. In 1964 the Sub-Divisional Officer of Anandapur transferred the disputed properties in favour of the Grama Panchayat, and thereafter they are leasing out the tank for pisciculture and realising some money. On 1-8-1970 the Petitioner filed a report before the Police that the second party members threatened to dispossess him. On 22-9-1970 the police submitted a report that the disputed land was in cultivating possession of the Petitioner (first party). The preliminary order was passed on 26-10-1970 and the lands were attached on 9-11-1970. The order of attachment shows that there were standing crops on the land. The second party presented a case that they were having pisciculture in the tank and paddy grown on the Adi of the tank. The learned Magistrate in the first instance held on 9-6-1971 that the Petitioner was in possession on the date of the preliminary order. He, accordingly, directed that he should continue in possession until evicted in due course of law. This order was set aside on 18-4-1972 in Criminal Revision No. 376 of 1971 and the case was remanded to the learned Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law by examining the materials on record. After remand, the learned Magistrate has held that the second party members were in possession on the date of the preliminary order and that they are entitled to remain in possession until evicted in due course of law. It is against this order that this Criminal Revision has been filed. 2. The order of the learned Magistrate is very perfunctory. After remand, the learned Magistrate has held that the second party members were in possession on the date of the preliminary order and that they are entitled to remain in possession until evicted in due course of law. It is against this order that this Criminal Revision has been filed. 2. The order of the learned Magistrate is very perfunctory. He has not carefully gone into the affidavits and has not given due weight to the various documents filed in the case. I, accordingly, called upon the learned Advocates to take me through affidavits and documents to dispose of the case finally. 3. It appears from the affidavits and the documents that each party did not disclose the true story. The first party member asserted that the disputed land did not constitute a tank. This is not correct. It has been recorded in the Khatian as a tank and the subsequent order of the Government in the year 1964 transferring the tank to be administered by village-Grama Panchayat supports this story of the second party that originally the disputed land constituted a tank. It appears that after the first party was displaced by his land being submerged or acquired under the Salandi Project he came upon this land and made an application to the State authority to grant this land in lease to him. The Deputy Collector in charge of Revenue, Sadar, Keonjhar has addressed a letter to Bayani Dei, the wife of the first party that her application for granting a lease on this land had been received by the Collector and was under consideration. There is an application of one Narayan Mohapatra on the writing pad of Soso Grama Panchayat under which the disputed land is situate making complaints against the member of the first party. Therein it has been stated that the disputed land constituted a tank. It had been silted up and the member of the first party dug out the embankment and put the earth inside the tank converting it into a paddy field. They wanted redress from the State to prohibit the member of the first party from interfering with the possession of the tank. It had been silted up and the member of the first party dug out the embankment and put the earth inside the tank converting it into a paddy field. They wanted redress from the State to prohibit the member of the first party from interfering with the possession of the tank. On 1-11-970 another petition was filed by the members of different villages including village Bangore that the disputed land may be leased out in favour of the member of the first party and they had no objection to that as the so called tank does not contain any water during summer. Bhajana Prusty, father of opposite party No. 2, the Sarpanch and Baidhar Dwibedi who has filed an affidavit in support of the case of the second party are signatories to this document. 4. Thus, the documents filed on behalf of the first party clearly establish that the first party member came upon the, disputed land, may be by way of trespass, anticipating lease for which his wife has made an application to the State. The contents of these documents are substantially corroborated by the affidavits filed on behalf of the first party. Four witnesses have filed affidavits. Two of them are neighbouring tenants and the other two are ward members. They fully support the case of the first party that ever since 1962 the first party member is in continuous possession of the disputed land. 5. Doubtless, the second party members have filed some documents to show that the State transferred the disputed land in favour of the Grama Panchayat and subsequently leases by the Grama Panchayat were given till 1970 to different persons annually. The second party members have not filed any document to show that after the first party member filled up the tank with earth to make it suitable for paddy cultivation any expenses were incurred by the Grama Panchayat to excavate o as to make it suitable for pisciculture. The affidavit witnesses on behalf of the second party do not appear to be independent. Four of them are lessees. One is the opposite party No. 2 himself and three others are residents of another village though one of them has some lands near about the disputed land. The affidavit witnesses on behalf of the second party do not appear to be independent. Four of them are lessees. One is the opposite party No. 2 himself and three others are residents of another village though one of them has some lands near about the disputed land. Taking into consideration their affidavits and the documentary evidence given on behalf of the second party, I am inclined to take the view that the documents produced by the Grama Panchayat are really paper transactions and do not reflect the true state of affairs. It is to be noted that though the second party members said that they were growing paddy on the Adi of the tank the, police found at the time of attachment that there was paddy on the entire land. This statement of the police at the time of attachment that there was paddy on the whole of the disputed land is admissible in evidence, though the statement of the police in the report as to which party in possession is inadmissible. The fact that paddy was grown on the entire land at the time of attachment is consistent with the first party?s case and lends further corroboration to the story that the first party was in possession till the date of the preliminary order. 6. On the aforesaid analysis, I am clearly of opinion that the first party member was in possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order. He is entitled to possession thereof until evicted in due course of law and the second party members are forbidden to make any disturbance of such possession until such eviction. 7. The order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the Criminal Revision is allowed.