S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is against an order dated 29. 6. 85 passed by III Additional Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1985. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Indraraj Singh had filed a complaint under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in the year 1983 against the non-applicants with regard to the dispute regarding lands as mentioned in the complaint in village Sardaman. The dispute, as alleged, was likely to result in breach of peace. The Station House Officer had also, on enquiry, submitted a report supporting that the dispute existed and there was a likelihood of breach of peace. Prayer had also been made for attachment of the disputed land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order and issued notices to the parties. Thereafter, orders of attachment were also passed. A supardar was appointed and the parties were given opportunities to adduce evidence. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on the basis of the material on record, found that the disputed land was Government land and had been allotted to Indraraj Singh on the ground of his being an Exserviceman and the other side was in unauthorized possession thereof. He also found that the non-applicants were dispossessed on 6-10. 78 and possession had been handed over to the Petitioner. He further found that in the copies of the revenue record, the petitioner has been shown to be in possession from 1979-80 to 1981-82, which goes to show that from 6. 10. 1978 till 3-3-1984 the petitioner was in possession of the lands in dispute and the other-side was not in possession He thus declared the possession to be that of the petitioner and passed an order restraining the non-applicants from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. The possession of the disputed land was ordered to be delivered to the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order; the non applicants filed a revision before the Court of Sessions. ( 3 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge found that the preliminary order was passed on 3-3-1983 and the copy (Ex. P-3) of the Khasra was for the years 1978-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, but no copy of Khasra for the year 1983-84 was tiled to show as to which of the parties was in possession in the year 1983 and on the date of the preliminary order. P-3) of the Khasra was for the years 1978-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, but no copy of Khasra for the year 1983-84 was tiled to show as to which of the parties was in possession in the year 1983 and on the date of the preliminary order. He further found that Naib Tahsildar, Mhowgange vide Order (Ex. P-2) dated 22. 9. 1978 had directed that Rajsingh of whom the present non- applicants are the legal heirs, be dispossessed from the disputed land, but in fact, they were never dispossessed. He also made a reference to an order dated 27-7-1983 of the Tahsildar, which mentions about the possession being with Raja Singh. As I find from the record, there are two orders of the Additional Tahsildar each being of 27-7-1983. However, both of them to go indicate that the possession continued with the non-applicants. On a totality of the circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the applicant may be having a right to possess the disputed land on the basis of the allotment order in is favour, but what has to be seen in the present proceedings is the question of possession. Accordingly, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. He found the possession to be with the present non applicants and. therefore, directed to restore the possession to them. Against that order, this revision has been filed. ( 4 ) NOTICE of this revision had been issued to the other-side. Accordingly, the counsel for the parties were heard on merits. Subsequently, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted an application for taking certain documents on record. Those documents include the photo-copies of the revenue records, photo-copy of order-sheet dated 13-4-1983 and the revenue case before the Naib-Tahsildar. Photo-copy of an order dated 19-11-1985 passed by the Revenue Commissioner in an appeal filed by respondent Raja Singh (deceased), photo-copy of a suit tiled by the present non-applicants against the State and petitioner Indraraj Singh. This suit is for declaration of title injunction. The Revenue Commissioners order dated 19-11- 1985 was in an appeal filed by Raja Singh (deceased) against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. It seems to have arisen in proceedings under section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, which had been initiated against Raja Singh. This suit is for declaration of title injunction. The Revenue Commissioners order dated 19-11- 1985 was in an appeal filed by Raja Singh (deceased) against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. It seems to have arisen in proceedings under section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, which had been initiated against Raja Singh. It further appears that the initial order of the Naib- Tahsildar was dated 13. 4. 1983 whereby besides directing eviction of Raja Singh, fine of Rs. 1500/- was also imposed. The S. D. O. had also dismissed appeal filed by Raja. Singh Photo copy of the S. D. O. s order has also been filed. The Revenue Commissioner had upheld the order of the S. D. O. and dismissed the appeal. These orders make out that the possession, though unauthorised, was found to be that of Raja Singh. The other photo copies of the orders referred to the correction of the entries. ( 5 ) PETITIONER Indraraj Singh in. his statement before the Sub Divisional Magistrate claims that the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to him on 6. 10. 1978 by the Patwari in presence of the persons made there in. That Patwari does not appear to have been examined. There is no document also to show that any panchnama had been prepared regarding the delivery of possession or eviction of Raja Singh, who admittedly was in possession from before. According to the petitioner Indraraj Singh, Chhotelal Singh had ploughed and cultivated the land on behalf. Chhotelal Singh, who was examined as a witness on behalf of the petitioner has admitted that the son of Raja Singh has filed a criminal case against him in the Court of the Magistrate, which is pending, It has also been admitted by the petitioner and his witness that at the time of the alleged delivery of possession, Raja Singh or anyone else on his behalf was not present. Contrary to what Chhotelal-Singh has stated, petitioner Indraraj Singh in his statement claimed that besides Chhotelal and Jailal Singh, other persons of the village were also present. ( 6 ) THE Sub Divisional Magistrate in his order has not referred to the evidence on which he arrived at the finding that the possession of the disputed land had been handed over to Indraraj Singh on 6. 10. 1978. ( 6 ) THE Sub Divisional Magistrate in his order has not referred to the evidence on which he arrived at the finding that the possession of the disputed land had been handed over to Indraraj Singh on 6. 10. 1978. The only evidence that he refers to is that of Chhotelal Singh and Jailal Singh; who have stated that they had seen Indraraj Singh cultivating that land in 1983- 84 and the copy (Ex. P. 3) in which the possession had been shown to be that of Indraraj Singh, which is for the years 1979-80 to 1981-82. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the 5dm. has not fully considered the evidence and had merely picked up stray Sentences without appreciating the evidence and the circumstances. The record clearly supports the conclusion of the Additional Sessions Judge that the possession had not been delivered to Indraraj Singh on 6. 10. 1978 as had been found by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Apart from the fact that Exhibit-P 3 does not bar the seal about its being a certified copy, the fact remains that the entry in favour of Indraraj Singh is based on the basis of the allotment order. In my opinion, the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly set-aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate as the Sub Divisional Magistrate had reached a conclusion without consideration of the material on record and his conclusions were contrary to the evidence. Thus to say that the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not, in the circumstances, deserve to be accepted. ( 7 ) THERE is yet one more aspect of the matter. Not only has the petitioner in his statement before the S. D. M. admitted about the civil suit having been filed, but the petitioner has further filed a copy of the plaint, which has been referred to above. This makes it clear that a competent Civil Court is seized of the matter wherein the question of title and injunction are in issue. For this reason also, this matter, in my opinion, should set at rest, so far as the Criminal Court is concerned. (See Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ). ( 8 ) IN my opinion, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. For this reason also, this matter, in my opinion, should set at rest, so far as the Criminal Court is concerned. (See Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ). ( 8 ) IN my opinion, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Consequently, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The order dated 27. 7. 1985 directing maintenance of status-quo as existing on 27. 7. 1985 stands vacated. It is made clear that any order passed or observation made in this revision shall not in any manner prejudice the case of either party in the Civil Court, which shall decide the case before it on the basis of the material and evidence placed before it. Revision dismissed. .