JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The first party in 145 Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding is in revision before this Court against the declaration of possession in favour of opposite party No. 3 who was second party in the proceeding. It was the Petitioner's case that the disputed land is a Government poramboke land of which he has been in possession and because of his encroachment, encroachment case beating L.E.C. No. 3661/82 had been started against him but the members of the second party opposite parties have threatened to cut and carry away the crops for which the proceeding was stated. Contesting such claim, it was the claim of the opposite party No. 3 that the disputed properties are the properties of the entire village manageably the village Kotha originally through one Gopi Fatesingh and thereafter through the opposite party No. 3 as a tenant and that the income of the land is Utilised by the village committee of which the Petitioner himself it a member for the management of the U.P. School and the Public Health Center. In the resolution dated 6-2-1968 of the Managing Committee he was inducted as a tenant of the land. It was the further case of the opposite parties that in a previous 145 Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding bearing Misc. Case No. 296/68 wherein both the opposite party No. 3 as also the Petitioner figured as members of the second party the possession of the opposite party No. 3 was declared expressly recognising his tight to continue in possession until evicted from it in due course of law. Such decision in that proceeding was also challenged by the members of the second party in that case in Crl. Revision No. 462/71 before this Court which was dismissed on 15-3-1973. Thereafter a suit was instituted by some members of the same second patty bearing T.S. No. 64/73 against the opposite. party No. 3 and the President of the village committee. The suit was dismissed and an appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 1/81 (4/77 GDC) preferred against the judgment and decree was also dismissed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, as against which, Second Appeal No. 78 of 1982 is pending in this Court. 2. party No. 3 and the President of the village committee. The suit was dismissed and an appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 1/81 (4/77 GDC) preferred against the judgment and decree was also dismissed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, as against which, Second Appeal No. 78 of 1982 is pending in this Court. 2. It is the admitted case of the Petitioner that he and the opposite party No. 3 are both parties in L.E.C. No. 3661/82 which was disposed of by the Tahasildar in favour of the opposite party No. 3. The decision of the Tahasildar was challenged by the Petitioner in appeal which having failed is now pending in revision before the Additional District Magistrate. Chatrapur at the instance of the Petitioner. 3. From the aforesaid narration of facts which are not disputed by Mr. Das, learned, counsel for the Petitioner, it appears that in the previous 145 Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding the possession was concussively declared in favour of the opposite party No. 3 and in such proceeding the Petitioner was a party and is as much bound by the order as the members of the second party therein. 4. In the present case, initiated by him, the Petitioner has not pleaded to have dispossessed the opposite party No. 3 nor has pleaded in which manner he came into possession of the land. In Giridhari Rout v. Bai alias Bairagi Parida and Ors. Cr. Rev. No. 123/84, decided on 19-7-1988 the question as to the effect of a decision in a previous 145 Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding on a proceeding commenced later on was considered and was held that where the possession of one of the parties in a previous proceeding had been declared, law must not in aid of maintaining such possession rather than disturb it and if any interference to such possession is threatened, the proper course is not to start a fresh proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure but to bind down the offending persons u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observed that, if the decision in the previous proceeding is not a recent ones but had been passed long back there might be occasion for the same situation regarding possession as decided in the earlier proceeding not to have continued and that a different state of things might have come into existence, but however since there IS a presumption of continuance of possession in favour of the successful party and the law gives protection to continuance of possession until varied by a competent court it must be the business of the judicial authorities to respect the previous declaration and not attempt to re-scan it at the slightest excuse. If the unsuccessful party comes up with a case of continuing in possession despite the previous order against him then clearly such plea is not entitled to be entertained and has to be thrown out in limine, the only exception being to a case where such party pleads of having re-entered possession and establishes such fact. Hence a party bound by a previous decision in 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding cannot succeed to divest the effect of that order merely by submitting that he bad been in possession without pleading specifically of having re-entered possession and the manner of it and also establishing such fact. 5. Since in the present case the Petitioner has not even referred to the previous 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding at all and far from pleading the process by which he could have come into possession after the decision of the earlier proceeding has come up with a new case to have continued in possession throughout such assertion must be held to have been negatived earlier. In that view of the matter the present proceeding at his instance was misconceived and could not have been taken aid of to unsettle the finding reached in Misc. Case No. 296/88 declaring possession of the opposite party No. 3. 6. While revision is to be adismissed in view of the discussions above, it is to be considered what effective orders are to be passed. By order No. 10 dated 27-6-1988 in Misc. Case No. 296/88 declaring possession of the opposite party No. 3. 6. While revision is to be adismissed in view of the discussions above, it is to be considered what effective orders are to be passed. By order No. 10 dated 27-6-1988 in Misc. Case No. 492/88 arising out of this revision it had been directed that the disputed land was to be auctioned under the receivership of the Revenue Supervisor, Pattapur who shall put the land to auction and settle the same with the highest bidder for cultivation. Mr. K.N. Sinha, learned Advocate appearing for one Lingaraj Pradhan has tiled a petition for intervention claiming to have been the highest bidder and to have been settled with the land for cultivation by the Revenue Supervisor and to have also deposited Rs. 9000/- as the bid money and of also further having spent Rs. 3000/- towards other expenses. Mr. Sinha has further submitted that the deposit was made for the year 1988-89 and that Sri Pradhan is entitled to retain the land till the agriculture year is over since he is entitled to raise a second crop on the land. 7. On failure of the revision petition, the opposite party No. 3 becomes entitled to get back possession of the land but since the order of the court cannot prejudice anybody, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the intervener must continue in the land till January, 1989 by which time the crops raised by him must be harvested and thereafter the opposite party No. 3 must be put back into possession of the land. 8. The lower court records be transmitted back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Berhampur forthwith who shall take steps to put the opposite party No. 3 into possession of the land by the second week of January, 1989. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall also adjudicate as to whether the intervener had deposited the bid amount for the entire year and is entitled to raise a second crop and consequent upon the decision reached by him, it is to be further decided as to whether the intervener becomes entitled to get refund of a portion of the Did-money representing his dispossession from the land for the rest portion of the year. Depending upon such decision, the opposite party No. 3 shall also be entitled to get either the whole of the bid-money or the balance of it as remains after refund to the intervener. With these direct ions, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed