JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application filed by Nand Kishore & ten others for revision of an order passed by the Assistant Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate No. 2, Tonk, on January 27, 1982, in proceedings under section 145, Cr.P C. The learned Executive Magistrate vide his order referred-to-above declared Kunj Behari Chela Baba Paramhans and Baba Shri Paramhans Maharaj, non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to be entitled to the possession of the property in dispute until evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbidding all disturbances of such possession until such eviction and restoring the possession of premises of Dharamshala, land of Bagechi and other disputed portion of the property to the non-petitioners, who were forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed by the petitioners, on December 19, 1976, i.e. within two months next before the date of the preliminary order. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition may be briefly narrated as follows:-Station House Officer, Niwai, filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, for initiation of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. against Nand Kishore and ten others, party No. 1, and Kunj Behari, Nand Kishore son of Ram Niwas and Baba Shri Paramhans, party No. 2. It was alleged in the complaint that on November 6, 1976, Kunj Behari Chela of Baba Parmhans made a report in writing to the Station House Officer, Niwai, that the land covered by Vishwa Shanti Ashram had been in continuous possession of Baba Paramhans for the last 30 or 40 years and that Baba Paramhans had constructed a building in the west of his main Ashram and that members of party No. 1, namely, Nand Kishore and ten others, wanted to have forcible possession over that building and some other land for starting Sanskrit school therein. In this connection, Baba Paramhans Maharaj filed a complaint also previously before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but the members of party No. 1 did not stop their illegal activities and were bent upon disturbing the breach of peace by trying to get wrongful possession of the building and the land. 3. Upon receiving the above mentioned complaint in writing from Shri Kunj Behari, the Station House Officer made an inquiry into the matter. 3. Upon receiving the above mentioned complaint in writing from Shri Kunj Behari, the Station House Officer made an inquiry into the matter. In the course of investigation, party No. 1 claimed to have been in possession of the land under controversy since 1950 and further alleged that the disputed land was wrongly shown in the possession of one Heman Das who, in the year 1961, got this land mutated in the name of Vaishnav Samaj and since then the Vaishnav Samaj had been in continuous possession thereof. It was further disclosed by party No. 1 that with the help of the public and with their money they have got five rooms constructed on a portion of this land laying towards the west of the main Ashram of Baba Paramhans and now Baba Paramhans has provented them from raisiag further constructions and has been indulging in picking up quarrel. 4. Party No. 2, on the other hand, put forward their claim over this land before the Station House Officer and alleged that Baba Paramhans has been in continuous possession of the land in dispute for the last 40 years and that five rooms have been constructed on this land by Baba Paramhans himself and that party No. 1 wanted to have forcible possession of the building for the purpose of running Sanskrit school. It was further disclosed to the Station House Officer that party No. 1 was bent upon wrongfully ejecting Baba Paramhans from his main Ashram also so that they may have no difficulty in grabbing the entire land and building constructed thereupon by Baba Paramhans for use of his disciples who come from outside. 5. The Station House Officer upon through investigation came to a conclusion that there was gennine dispute between both the parties and that the dispute was likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning the land and the building under controversy, so he made a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, for initiation of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C and further requested that the land in dispute comprised in Khasra Nos. 3813, 3814 and 3815 situated in Niwai town and the five rooms constructed thereupon may be a tacked pending decision as he considered the case to be one of emergency. 6. 3813, 3814 and 3815 situated in Niwai town and the five rooms constructed thereupon may be a tacked pending decision as he considered the case to be one of emergency. 6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, upon receiving the complaint, ordered a fresh inquiry into it by the Station Honse Officer and was satisfied from the report of the Station House Officer that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed concerning the land in dispute and the five rooms constructed thereupon. So he made a preliminary order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court on January 27, 1977 and to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered the case to be one of emergency so he ordered attachment of the land and the five rooms pending his decision under section 145, Cr.PC. In response to the notice, party No.1 Nand Kishore and others, filed a written reply wherein, it was also alleged that the disputed land comprised in Khasra Nos. 3813, 3814 and 3815 situated in Niwai town did not belong to party No.2 and party No.2 had never been in possession thereof. It was further alleged that the land belonged to Vaishnav Samaj which was in possession thereof in the capacity of a Khatedar tenant and that Vaishnav Samaj gifted away this land to Sanatan Dharam Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Niwai, vide registered gift-deed dated September 20,1969 and since then Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya had been in continuous possession thereof and the land had been mutated in its name by the concerned revenue authority. It was further stated in the reply that the said Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya, Niwai, had spent huge sums in erecting boundary wall around the land in dispute and in constructing five rooms and a Bagechi thereupon for running a Sanskrit school and so the possession of Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya may be declared and the party No.2 may be bound down not to dispossess Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya from the land under controversy. 7. On behalf of party No. 2 Kunj Behari, Nand Kishore and Paramhans Maharaj filed a written reply in which it was alleged that the land comprised in Khasras Nos. 7. On behalf of party No. 2 Kunj Behari, Nand Kishore and Paramhans Maharaj filed a written reply in which it was alleged that the land comprised in Khasras Nos. 3813, 3814 and 3815 situated in Niwai town and measuring 6 Bighas and 18 Biswas is and has been in possession of Paramhan Maharaj since 1951.Formerly the land was comprised in Khasra No. 2918 which was in possession of one Heman Das son of Mool Chand Sindhi resident of Niwai as a Khatedar tenant thereof but Shri Haman Das gifted away this land to Paramhans for establishment of an Ashram for world peace. Paramhans Maharaj accepted the gift and took the land into his possession. Thereafter Paranihans Maharaj constructed a cave and on it built a temple of Bhooteshwar Mahadeo & dug a small well & grow plants & trees on the land. Then Shri Paramhans constructed a 'pucca' bounary wall about 5 or 6 feet high around the land comprised in Khasra No. 3815 and thereafter further constructed a temple of Jageshwar Mahadeo and several rooms and verandans around it apart from latrines, bath-rooms etc. Towards the west of his Ashram Shri Paramhans get constructed five rooms for the residence and use of his disciples and followers coming from outside Niwai and raised a 'pucca' wall in between the Ashram and the rooms and, in this manner, spent about one and a half lacs of rupees. It was further alleged in the reply that party No I began to interfere with the possession of Paramhans Maharaj over the five rooms which the latter had constructed for the use and residence of his disciples and followers coming from outside Niwai town. The party No. 1 in November 1976 tried to cause breach of peace. Hence Kunj Behari Lal, one of the members of party No 2, made a report to the Station House Officer, Niwai. Thereafter in December, 1976, party No. 1 again created trouble and forcibly caused the Chokidars to run away from there and started running a school. Thereupon, Baba Paramhans and his followers asked party No. 1 not to indulge in nefarious activities. But members of party No. 1 never prepared to shed blood and to cause 'marpeet' Thereupon, Baba Paramhans asked his followers to keep quiet and maintain the peace, otherwise on that day breach of peace was a certainty. Thereupon, Baba Paramhans and his followers asked party No. 1 not to indulge in nefarious activities. But members of party No. 1 never prepared to shed blood and to cause 'marpeet' Thereupon, Baba Paramhans asked his followers to keep quiet and maintain the peace, otherwise on that day breach of peace was a certainty. Party No. 1, however, on December 19, 1976 succeeded in forcibly and wrongfully occupying the five rooms and the land and dispossessing party No.2 therefrom. Party No. 2, therefore, prayed that their possession may be declared on the land comprised in Khasras Nos 3813, 3814 and 3815 and party No. 1 may be restrained from causing any interference with their possession and possession of five rooms may be restored to party No 2 who bad forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed therefrom by party No. l. 8. Both the parties put in affidavits of their witnesses along with several documents, in support of their respective claims as respects the actual possession of the property in dispute. The Sub-Divisonal Magistrate considered the entire evidence-oral as well as documentary-led by the parties on the record and came to a decision upon such evidence that party No.2 was in actual possession of disputed land comprised in Khasras Nos.3813, 3814 and 3815 and the construction raised thereon, e.g. five rooms of Dharamshala, temple, cave. well, Bagechi etc. and further decided that party No. 2 has within two months next before the date of the preliminary order been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed from the rooms of Dharamshala, Bagechi and other disputed land and that they may be treated as if they had been in possession thereof at the date of the preliminary order. Consequently, he issued an order declaring party No. 2 to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefore in due course of law and forbidding all disturbances of such possession until such eviction. He further ordered that the possession of the rooms of Dharamshala, Bagechi and other disputed portion of land be restored to party No.2 has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed therefore on December 19, 1976, i.e. two months immediately preceding the date of the passing of the preliminary order. 9. Aggrieved by this order, party No. 1 has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. 9. Aggrieved by this order, party No. 1 has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. V.S. Dave and Mr. Narendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Agrawal and Radha Krishna Goyal Advocates appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners. 11. At the outset I may observe that under section 145, Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Magistrate to decide on enquiry as to whether any and which of the parties was in actual possession of the property in dispute at the date of passing the preliminary order. Of course, when one of the parties has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months immediately preceding the date of the preliminary order, the Magistrate has to treat such party as having been in actual possession of the subject-matter of dispute at the date of the preliminary order under the proviso to sub-section (4) of 5.145 Cr.P.C. Except as laid down in the said proviso, the Magistrate must confine himself to the decision of the question of actual possession at the date of the preliminary order. He is not empowered to make an inquiry into and give a finding on that the rights of the parties to the possession of the disputed property. The Magistrate, however,can go into the question of title only to evaluate the evidence of actual possession at the relevant date. 12. The Magistrate in the instant case found upon evidence that party No 2 was in actual possession of a specified portion of the property in dispute or I may say of some particular items, e.g. Vishwa Shanti Ashram, Nageshwar Mahadeo Temple, Bagechi, cave, Samadhi etc., at date of the preliminary order and that the possession of the rest, i.e. Dharamshalla consisting of five rooms, its Bagechi and some land appertaining thereto was found to have been obtained by party No. 1 by forcibly and wrongfully dispossessing party No.2 within two months next before the date of the preliminary order. So the Magistrate treating party No. 2 so dispossessed as having been in possession of said portion of the disputed property at the date of the preliminary order and, consequently, he ordered restoration of its possession to party No. 2 under subsection (6) of S. 145. So the Magistrate treating party No. 2 so dispossessed as having been in possession of said portion of the disputed property at the date of the preliminary order and, consequently, he ordered restoration of its possession to party No. 2 under subsection (6) of S. 145. Cr.P.C. Hence, it has to be ascertained from the record whether the order passed by the Magistrate is legal, proper and reasonable and based on some evidence or material or whether it is vitiated by any illegality or impropriety or an account of having been based on no legal evidence or material at all and can be interfered with in revision by this Court. On behalf of party No. 1 Nand Kishore P.W. 1, Ram Dayal Shashtri, PW 2, Durga Lal PW 3, Ladu Singh PW 4 Sita Ram P.W. 5, Banshi Dhar P.W. 6 and Hira Lal Gujar P.W. 7 appeared in the witness box before the Executive Magistrate. Upon careful review of their evidence. I am of the view that the findings of the Executive Magistrate relating to actual possession of party No. 2 over Vishwa Shanti Ashram, Shiv temple, cave, well. Bagechi etc. surrounded by a pucca compound wall on the date of the preliminary order based on legal evidence and is not vitiated by any illegality, impropriety or unreasonableness. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses examined on behalf of party No.1 it could not be established that Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya or members of party No. 1 were in actual possession of the aforesaid properties in dispute at the date of the preliminary order. It does not further transpire from their evidence that the Vishwa Shanti Ashram, Shiv temple, cave, well Bagechi etc. were constructed by party No. 1 or by Vaishnava Samaj or by Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya out of their funds. Durga Lal. P.W. 3, clearly admitted in his cross-examination that Paramhansji Maharaj one of the members of Party No. 2 had constructed the temple with the aid of subscriptions given to him by the inhabitants of Niwai town. He however could not tell the names of any person belonging to Vishnav Samaj, who had contributed to the fund out of which the temple and the boundary wall were constructed. He however could not tell the names of any person belonging to Vishnav Samaj, who had contributed to the fund out of which the temple and the boundary wall were constructed. His admission is quoted below in vernacular: " ijegalth us turk ds lg;ksx ls eafnj cuok;k FkkA pUnk fuokbZ ds yksxksa us fn;k FkkA pkj nhokjh lu~ 1963] 64 o 1965 esa cuh FkhA eafnj dkSu ls lky esa cuk irk ugha gS lu~ 1950&57 esa eafnj cuk gks eq>s irk ugha gS ijegalth egkjkt dk ije lk/kuk dsUnz Hkh ,d xqQk ds :i esa cuk gqvk gSA ,d dqvk Hkh cuk gqvk gS] dc cuk eq>s irk ugha gSaA eafnj cuk rc gh dqvk cuk FkkA " He further admitted as follows: " oS".kko lekt us fooknxzLr Hkwfe dk dCtk gseUrnkl ls fd;k FkkA gseUrnkl us lu~ 1961&62 esa dCtk fn;k Fkk gseUrnkl us eafnj dqvk rFkk eafnj dk dCtk oS".kko lekt dks ugha fn;k FkkA dCtk nsus dh dkbZ fy[kkoV ugha gSaA " Likewise, Banshi Dhar Pareeh, P.W. 5. admitted in his cross-examination that Paramhansji Maharaj has been in possession of the temple on behalf of the Vaishnava Samaj. He could not say whether any other person except Paramhansji has been in possession of the temple and its rooms. The relevant portion of his cross-examination reads as follows : " eafnj ij bl le; os".kko /keZ dh vkSj ls Jh ijegalth egkjkt gh dkfct gSaA tc ls eafnj cuk rc ls ijegalth egkjkt ds vykok vU; dksbZ O;fDr dkfct jgk gks irk ugha gSA " Shri Ram Dayal Shashtri, P.W. 2. also admitted that there are rooms constructed in the temple along with bath room and Baba Paramhansji reside therein along with his bag and baggage. also admitted that there are rooms constructed in the temple along with bath room and Baba Paramhansji reside therein along with his bag and baggage. The relevant portion of his cross-examination is quoted below: " bl eafnj esa dejs Hkh cus gq, gSaA Lukux`g Hkh gSA ckck ijegalth ogka jgrs gSA vr% mudk lkeku Hkh ogka jgrk gSA eafnj ds njoktksa ij fdokM+ gSA tc egkjkt ckgj tkrs gS rc rky ijegalth yxkrs gS ;k vU; dksbZ esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gSA fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds pkjksa vkSj iDdh nhokj cuh gq;h gSA dc cuh lu~ ;kn ugha gSA ;g esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS fd nhokj ijegalth us cuk;h gksaA " In this manner, the witnesses examined on behalf of party No. 1 no doubt alleged in their depositions before the Executive Magistrate that Vishwa Shanti Ashram, cave, temple, well and Bagechi were constructed by Vaishnav Samaj, but they could not produce or cause to be produced any account of the sums spent in the construction work. They could not even say in which year the aforesaid properties were constructed on the land along with the pucca compound wall and how much money was spent in constructing them and from where the money had come. On the other hand, its transpires from their evidence that Paramhansji Maharaj, one of the members of party No. 2, has been in continuous possession of these properties. They could not say how and in what manner Vaishnav Samaj or Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya had come into actual possession of these properties. Hence, the oral evidence adduced by party No. 1 as respects the actual possession of the aforesaid properties at the date of the preliminary order or prior thereto is not at all reliable and convincing. On the other hand, the evidence of witnesses adduced by party No. 2, namely, Gopal DW 1. Kana Ram DW 2, Chand Mal DW 3, Parabhu Lal DW 4, Ram Singh DW 5, Ram Narain DW 6 and Kunj Behari DW 7 clearly established that the aforesaid items property were constructed by Paramhansji Maharaj who has been in continuous possession thereof at the relevant date. 13. Kana Ram DW 2, Chand Mal DW 3, Parabhu Lal DW 4, Ram Singh DW 5, Ram Narain DW 6 and Kunj Behari DW 7 clearly established that the aforesaid items property were constructed by Paramhansji Maharaj who has been in continuous possession thereof at the relevant date. 13. It will not be out of place to mention that one Heman Das son of Mool Chand by caste Singhi resident of Nawi town executed a gift-deed in favour of Paramhal, one of the members of party No. 2 in respect of Khasra No. 3815 measuring 6 Bighas 18 Biswas, the old Khasra No. of which was 2918 of the same measurement. Heman Das was the the Khatedar tenant of this Khasra No. 3815. The disputed property has been constructed on this Khasra number. The gift was made in favour of Paramhansji Maharaj for construction of Vishwa Shanti Ashram on February 11, 1951, but the gift deed was not got executed and registered in the year 1951 and an Ikrarn,ama only was executed by the do not although Heman Das promised the donee to get the deed duly executed and registered later on. In pursuance of his promise Heman Das got the gift deed of this property executed and registered on July 6, 1975. The gift was accepted by Paramhansji as is evident from the endorsement made by Baba by Paramhansji on it in token of accepetance. A copy of the Ikranama executed in favour do Baba Paramhansji is Ex. A 9 (corrected Ex. A 11). A copy of the gift-deed is marked Ex.A-8 on the record. From the copies of the Ikrarnama and the gift-deed it is evident that the possession of Khasra No. 3815 measuring 6 Bighas 18 Biswas (the old khasra NJ. of which was 2918 of the same measurement) was given by Heman Das to Paramhansji done as back as on February 11, 1951. Radhey Shyam Gupta, Advocate, D.W. 9, who appeared in the witness-box, on behalf of party No. 2, has proved the original gift-deed Ex.A-8, which was filed in the Case No. 11/81 Paramhans v. Girdhari Lal etc . instituted in the court of the Assistant Collector No. 1, Tonk, by stating in clear and definite terms that the donor Heman Das put his signatures there to and got it registered in his presence. instituted in the court of the Assistant Collector No. 1, Tonk, by stating in clear and definite terms that the donor Heman Das put his signatures there to and got it registered in his presence. The draft of the gift-deed was prepared by Radhey Shyam Gupta, who later on attested the gift-deed also as an attesting witness. Radhey Shyam Gupta further stated that Paramhansji was already in continuous possession of the gifted-property at the time of execuation and registration of the gift-deed Ex. A-8. Likewise, Girdhari Lal DW 10 has proved Ikrarnama Ex.A-9 by stating that Heman Das gave possession of this property to Baba Paramhans in the year 1951 by executing this Ikarnama in his presence. 14. On behalf of party No 1 reliance has been placed on a photo-state copy of gift-deed Ex.P. 17 which was alleged to have been executed by some representatives of Vaishnav Samaj, Niwai, in four of Sanatan Dharam Sanskrit Mahavidhyalay as in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 3815 measuring 6 Bighas and 18 Biswas for constructing a building thereon for running Sanskrit School. This gift-deed was got registered on September 27, 1969. In this gift-deed it has been written by the donor that in this Khasra No. 3815 there is included land comprised in Khasra Nos. 3813 and 3814 measuring 1 Biswas and 2 Biswas respectively on which one 'pucca' cave, and Jageshwar Mahadeo temple has been constructed by Vaishnaw Samaj. The learned Executive Magistrate rightly held upon careful consideration of the entire evidence on the record that the evidence led by party No. 1 in proof of their possession of certain items of disputed property, i.e. cave, Jageshwar Mahadeo temple, Vishwa Shanti Ashram, Bagechi, well etc. at the date of the preliminary order is not entitled to weight in view of the positive evidence of party No. 2 as respects their actual possession of these items of disputed properties at the relevant date. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, i.e. party No. 1, that the aforesaid items of disputed property were in actual possession of No. 1, or Vaishnav Samaj or Sanskrit Mahavdhalaya at the date of the preliminary order or within two months immediately preceding re said order. 15. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, i.e. party No. 1, that the aforesaid items of disputed property were in actual possession of No. 1, or Vaishnav Samaj or Sanskrit Mahavdhalaya at the date of the preliminary order or within two months immediately preceding re said order. 15. The next question that arises for determination is whether rest of the disputed property, i.e five rooms, Bagechi, land appertinent thereto and the pucca compound wall around them had been in possession of party No. 2 within two months next before the date of the preliminary order and whether party No. 1 obtained possession thereof by forcibly and wrongfully dispossessing party No. 2 within two months immediately preceding the said order. The learned Magistrate came to a decision upon evidence that party No. 1 was in actual possession of the aforesaid items of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order. He further came to a definite finding that party No. 2 had been dispossessed from the aforesaid items of the disputed property by party No. 1 within a period of two months next preceding the preliminary order. He, therefore, treated party No. 2 who was dispossessed, as, if they had been in possession on the date of the preliminary order and made an order directing delivery of possession thereof to party No. 2. This finding has been challenged before me by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of party No. 1 on the ground that party No. 1 had been in possession of tie aforesaid items of disputed property beyond two months next before the date of the preliminary order & that party No. l got constructed five rooms, a 'pucca' compound wall and a Bagechi on the land for the purpose of running Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya and that the construction work commenced from July 18, 1973 although the land on which the said constructions were made was in possession of the Mahavidhyalaya since 1969. Party No. 2, on the other hand, alleged that Baba Paramhansji Maharaj, one of its members got constructed one Dharamshalla consisting of five rooms, Bagechi and a compound wall around them and that later on December 19, 1976, members of party No. 1 obtained possession of the live rooms, Bagechi, compound wall and the land within the compound wall by forcibly and wrongfully dispossessing party No. 2. Upon careful review of the entire evidence I have come to the conclusion that party No. 2 complaining disturbance of their possession has succeeded in showing that the said items of property were in their possession within two months next before the date of the preliminary order. The preliminary order in this case was drawn by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on January 3, 1977, as is evident from the order-sheet Banshi Dhar Pareekh appearing on behalf of party No. 1 clearly admitted that Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya has been running in the five disputed rooms since November 6, 1976, on which date, according to him, the opening ceremony of the Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya had taken place. Similar is the evidence of Hira Lal Gujar P.W. 7 Durga Lal P.W. 3 stated in his examination-in-chief that in the month of November, 1976, the Sanskrit Pathshalla was shifted to these rooms and since then it is being run here. Shri Ram Dayal Shastri, Principal Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya P.W. 2, also stated in his deposition that Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya was shifted to these newly constructed five rooms on November 6, 1976 in pursuance to tie resolution of the Prabandh Samiti of the Maha Vidhyalaya marked Ex.P.9 & Ex.P.10. Hence from the evidence of party No. 1 it is obvious that in the month of November, 1976, the Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya was shifted to these five rooms & since then it has been running there. The witness examined by party No. 1 however, stated in their depositions that the construction of these rooms commenced in the year 1973 and the land on which these rooms were constructed was in possession of Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya from 1969. It will not be out of place to mention that party No. 1 could not adduce any reliable oral or documentary evidence to prove that these rooms were constructed on the disputed land by the Prabandh Samiti of the Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya at its cost. It will not be out of place to mention that party No. 1 could not adduce any reliable oral or documentary evidence to prove that these rooms were constructed on the disputed land by the Prabandh Samiti of the Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya at its cost. Party No. 2, on the other hand, alleged that on November 6, 1976, at about 9 a.m. members of party No. 1 assembled at the disputed property and made every attempt to dispossess party No. 2 wrongfully and forcibly from the five rooms and allowed some students of Sanskrit Pathshalla to sit in the room s of the Dharamshalla which had been in possession of Baba Paramhans and started some construction work. One of the members of party No. 1 Kunj Behari lodged a written report about this incident with the Station House Officer, Niwai, on the very day, i.e. November 6, 1976, and on the basis of this report the Station House Officer made an enquiry into the matter and eventually submitted a complaint under section 107 read with section 116(3), Cr.P.C before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, on November 12, 1976 for getting both the parties bound down under section 107. Cr.P.C. and for attachment of the disputed land including five rooms. Party No. 2 further alleged that later on December 19, 1976, at about 12 a.m. 40 or 45 person belonging to party No. 1 entered the disputed land, puslied Mohan Lal, Chanda, Bhura and Hazari Chowkidars of the Paramhansji Maharaj, broke open the locks of two rooms of the aforesaid Chowkidars and threw away their goods out of them and took away other moveable property stores, utensils etc. On December 20, 1976, one Mohan Lal son of Bajrang Lal Gujar presented an application in writing about this incident before the Sub-Divisonal Magistrate, Tonk, & prayed for attachment of the disputed property under section 146(1), Cr.P C. as the case was one of emergency. The Station House officer, Tonk. also submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk on November 29, 1976, for initiation of proceedings tinder section 145, Cr. P.C. against both the parties and prayed for attachment of the disputed land including 5 rooms. Consequently, the learned Magistrate did not commit any error in coming to a conclusion that party No. 2 was forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed from this portion of the disputed land including 5 rooms. P.C. against both the parties and prayed for attachment of the disputed land including 5 rooms. Consequently, the learned Magistrate did not commit any error in coming to a conclusion that party No. 2 was forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed from this portion of the disputed land including 5 rooms. Bagechi, and the compound wall around it on December 19, 1976. Even if it is assumed that party No. 1 shifted the Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya to the five rooms on November 6, 1976, as alleged by the witnesses of party No. 1, the Magistrate rightly treated party No. 2 so dispossessed as if party No. 2 had been in possession at the date of the preliminary order which was passed in this case on January 3, 1977, i e. within two months. The Executive Magistrate was moved to take action under section 145. Cr.P.C. by the Station House Officer within two months of such dispossession and the preliminary order also was drawn within two months of such dispossession. 16. On behalf of the petitioners. i.e. party No. 1 reliance has been placed on inspection reports of the Inspector of Schools. Tonk, marked Exs P. 3 and P. 4 dated September 29, 1973 and July 3, 1975, respectively and an audit report Ex P.11, receipt Ex.P. 12 and certain bills of electricity marked Exs. P. 13 to P. 16 to show that these rooms were constructed by Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya, Niwai, in the name of which the land, on which these constructions were made, was mutated and entered in the Zamabandi of Samvat years 2033 to 2036 and Khasra Girdawari of Samat years 2030 to 2032 marked Ex. P. 1 and P. 2 respectively. I have gone through these documents In the inspection reports it is mentioned that same new building is being constructed for running Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya, but these reports do not disclose any locality in which this building was being constructed. Apart from this, these documents are not helpful at all in determining the question as to which party was in actual possession of these five rooms, Bagechi and the land apertinent thereto along with the compound wall at the relevant date. Apart from this, these documents are not helpful at all in determining the question as to which party was in actual possession of these five rooms, Bagechi and the land apertinent thereto along with the compound wall at the relevant date. It is no doubt true that the land, on which these five rooms and the Bagechi were constructed, was mutated in the name of Sanatan Dharmshalla Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya in the year 1973 by the Revenue authorities and this fact came to the knowledge of Paramhansji Maharaj when he applied for having this land mutated in his name after it was gifted away to him by Heman Das in July, 1974 vide registered deed As soon to Baba Paramhansji came to know about the land having been mutated in the name of Sanskrit Maha Vidhyalaya in the year 1973, he filed a suit in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, in September, 1975, which is still rending decision in that court. The aforesaid facts are mentioned by Shri Kunj Behari Lal etc. party No. 2 in reply to the notice dated January 22, 1978, given to them under section 145, Cr. P.C. Hence, the aforesaid documents filed by party No. 1 in support of their claim are of no assistance in coming to the conclusion that party No. 1 was in actual possession of the disputed property at the relevant time. 17. In Amar Chand v. Shanti Bose, AIR 1973 S.C. 799 , the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction under section 439, old Cr. P.C. should be exercised normally only in exceptional cases, e.g., where the defects in the procedure are glaring or where there is a manifest error of point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. There is nothing of this kind in this case. The learned Executive Magistrate has carefully assessed the entire evidence in a judicial manner & has come to a correct conclusion upon such assessment. 18. The present revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******