Judgment The revision petitioner, Mohammed Yusuf Ali Abbas assails the order of the learned Executive Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sivaganga “dropping proceedings” instituted under section 145 (5), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The revision petitioner residing at Ilayangudi claimed to be in possession of 6.16 acres in Survey No. 169/1 and 1.90 acres in Survey No. 162/2 in Kongampatti Village, Ramanathapuram District. He also claimed to prescribe title over those properties and produced Kist receipts and examined witnesses including Karnam. 3. One Kuppu Konar of ‘B’ Party, who alone filed a statement contended that the disputed land belonged to Ayyanar temple which was taken over by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and that he took over all the properties belonging to the Deity in 1974 and that he has also paid Kist. 4. The Executive Magistrate made a local inspection of the property and made the following laconic order: “The petitioner has not put forth in his petition the actual portion of the land which he claims to be in his possession. The entire extent of 15.00 acres comes in S. 169/1 and other of 3.80 acres in S.No. 169/2. Mere production of Kist receipt either without patta No. or S. No. and orders of the settlement authorities are not sufficient to prove his possession of the extent claimed by him. Local inspection of the lands shows that many persons are in possession at present. The petitioner has not proved his possession of the land claimed by him beyond reasonable doubt. As such the petition fails and it is dismissed. Further proceedings are dropped under section 145 (5), Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the order is vitiated because the Magistrate has made a local inspection without giving notice to. the parties and that he was influenced by this extra judicial information gathered by him at the time of local inspection. This contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is well founded. I may here point out that Mr. Kumar, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner does not dispute the fact that the Magistrate can make a local inspection while making a local enquiry of a disputed issue when it is done for the purpose of appreciating the evidence already on record. But, the Magistrate should not be influenced by the evidence gathered on the spot. Kumar, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner does not dispute the fact that the Magistrate can make a local inspection while making a local enquiry of a disputed issue when it is done for the purpose of appreciating the evidence already on record. But, the Magistrate should not be influenced by the evidence gathered on the spot. The learned Magistrate has clearly observed that he made a local inspection on 11th August, 1976, and that local inspection revealed that the property in dispute lies in two different sub-divisions and S. No. 169/1 measures 15.00 acres, that S.No. 169/2 measures 2.80 acres and they are in the possession and enjoyment of several persons on lease. 6. In Mangru Feku Momin, In re, the learned Judges of a Bench of the Bombay High Court observed that the judicial practice of questioning persons without recording their evidence and without allowing the other side an opportunity for cross-examination in a local inquiry cannot be permitted. In Appayya Naika v. State of Mysore the learned Officiating Chief Justice pointed out that it is not desirable for a Magistrate yielding to the temptation of conducting local inspection to base his conclusion solely on observation made by him. In Syed Ahmed Sahib Shutar v. The Magistrate Syndicate Limited a Bench of this Court observed that the inspection which a Judge makes should be used by him only to test the accuracy of the evidence let in and he should not, without submitting himself to the test of cross-examination make his knowledge the sole evidence for determining the question raised before him. With respect I adopt this observation of the learned Judges. From the records I find that the Magistrate has not prepared any report of his local inspection. The order extracted very clearly shows that his local inspection revealed that many persons are in enjoyment and in possession of the disputed lands. It is also very clearly shown that he was influenced by extra-judicial information gathered at the time when he made the local inspection. In Batakrushna Naik v. Khageswar Kunda Misra, J. observed as follows: “Here is an instance where the learned Magistrate has overstepped the limit and made use of his local inspection in such amanner that he has himself become more or less a witness and has ceased to be the arbiter of the dispute. In Batakrushna Naik v. Khageswar Kunda Misra, J. observed as follows: “Here is an instance where the learned Magistrate has overstepped the limit and made use of his local inspection in such amanner that he has himself become more or less a witness and has ceased to be the arbiter of the dispute. If a Magistrate imports into the case any facts which he has himself observed, he would be introducing into the case evidence which has not been subjected to the test of cross-examination and in regard to which he may have been misled by his senses or have been biased in favour of either party.” That decision was rendered with reference to a proceeding under section 149, Criminal Procedure Code. I may point out that the above observation of Misra, J., will apply with great force to the facts of the present case. It is, therefore, clear that the order of the Magistrate was made without giving notice to the parties and he has used the information he gathered at the time he made local inspection to drop the proceedings. The order is clearly vitiated and has to be set aside. The revision is allowed. The order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Executive Magistrate for hearing afresh unbiased by any observation made in the judgment.