JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. It was pointed out at the earliest that the application has been moved by the present petitioners under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the present petitioner. From the perusal of the application, it seems that there is an allegation that the present non-petitioners are in the possession of the land and they are cultivating the laud on behalf of Bauia. A prayer has also been made in the present application that the land may be got vacated. The petitioner has not come with a case that within two months prior to the date of application, he has ever remained is, the possession of the property. The application in the petition itself is that since the date of registration and even prior to that, non-petitioners were cultivating the land and in spite of the same, they are not getting possession, of the land. 3. Learned Sessions Judge has given a detailed order. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it proper to interfere in the order passed by learned Sessions Judge. The petition is, rejected. The stay order granted by this Court shall stand automatically vacated. The consequential order shall be passed by the learned Magistrate. Mr. Sajjan Singh submits that the possession has already been delivered on 27th July, 1984. In such circumstances the bidder, who has taken the land for cultivation for the present agricultural-season cannot be punished and the amount, if deposited by the bidder, should be refunded to him. 5. The revision petition is decided accordingly. *******