JUDGMENT BHUVANESHWAR PRASAD, J 1. This is an application under sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). It is directed against the order dated 23.7.1985 passed in Case No.206 (M) of 1980 by Shri M. Bhojraj, Executive Magistrate, Katihar in a proceeding under Sections 145 of the Code declaring the possession of the first party opposite over the disputed land. 2. It appears that G.S. Plot No. 760, Khata No.141 of Mauza Sujapur, P.S. Barari and District Khtihar measured 0.6 decimals. During the revisional surrey two plots, namely, R.S. plot No.1351 and 1351 are said to have been carved out of this plot. G.S. plot No. 760 is recorded in the name of Pitu Kumhar and Munshi Kumhar. There was a dispute between the parties with respect to these two plots and therefore a proceeding under section 144 of the code was started by the police. Subsequently it was converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the code. It was heard and finally disposed of by the order dated 1.10.1982 by the learned Executive Magistrate named above. According to this order the learned Magistrate declared the possession of Karu Pandit a member of the second party 0.2 decimals of disputed land and possession of Hit Lal Pandit over the remaining 0.4 decimals. 3. It appears that against this order Mathura Pandit and Shiv Narayan filed revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar. It was registered as Criminal Revision No. 88 of 1982 and disposed of on 9.9.1983 by Shri R.D. Roy, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar. While remanding back the case to the court of the learned Magistrate, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 15 of his judgment has observed as follow:– "The learned Magistrate should depute a qualified survey knowing Amin to examine the actual line of control of possession over the disputed land arising out of cadastral survey plot No. 760 and take into account the claim of the parties based on documentary as well as oral evidence and then pass the order based on facts and realties of the case. With this observation the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is here by set aside and case is remanded back to the court below to examine the claim of both the parties afresh in the light of receipt of report of the Amin and pass the order in accordance with law". 4. On the basis of this remand order the matter again came before the learned Magistrate named above, who by his impugned order dated 23.7.1985 has declared the possession of the first party over the disputed land. 5. In this revision application the two petitioners were the members of the second parties along with opposite party Nos. 3 to 9. So for as opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are concerned they were the members of the first party before the learned Magistrate. The Petitioners have contended that when there was an apprehension of breach of the peace with respect to the disputed land a proceeding under section 144 of the Code was started by the Officer-in-charge, Barari Police Station. He had found the possession of the second party the petitioners over the disputed land over which they had Nad, Khuta and Jhopari etc. The proceeding was subsequently converted into one under section 145 of the code. The case of the second party (Petitioners) is that they had purchased the disputed land from one Khonai Pandit but this land has wrongly been recorded in the R.S. Khatian in the name of Karu Pandit. A large number of documents were filed by both the parties who had also examined witnesses. As many as seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the second party (Petitioners) while six witnesses have been examined for the first party. At the request of the second party (Petitioners) the learned Magistrate had held a local enquiry in the presence of both the parties and submitted the report which can be seen kept on the record. After perusing the record and hearing the parties the learned Magistrate had declared the possession of the petitioner over the dispute land by his order dated 1.10.1982. On revision this order was set aside and the case was remanded back to the learned Magistrate as mentioned above. 6. After perusing the record and hearing the parties the learned Magistrate had declared the possession of the petitioner over the dispute land by his order dated 1.10.1982. On revision this order was set aside and the case was remanded back to the learned Magistrate as mentioned above. 6. It was further contended that on remand the learned Magistrate examined two witnesses on behalf of the first party namely Mangal Prasad the record keeper of Darabhanga Maharaj and Sita Ram Pandit the Amin. In course of cross-examination, the Amin stated that the map was prepared by him in the court itself on that very date. Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. This order is bad in law and wrong in the facts. The learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the documents of the parties and the evidence of the witnesses examined. He has also committed an error of law by declaring the title which he was not required to do under the provisions of section 145 of the Code. On these amongst, other grounds the petitioners prayed that the impugned order be quashed. 7. The only point for decision before me is whether this revision application is fit to be allowed or not. 8. It appears that the matter had earlier been finally heard and disposed of by the learned. Executive Magistrate by his order dated 1.10.1982. A revision application was filed against this order. I have already quoted above the operative portion of order of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge while disposing of the revision application by which he has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 1.10.1982. In this revision application he has issued certain directions and had remanded back the case to the court of the learned Magistrate. It was on the basis of this remand order that the learned Magistrate again got the jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter which he did by passing the order. It is well known that under the circumstances like this the learned Magistrate gets the jurisdiction to rehear and decide the matter earlier disposed of by him on the strength of the order passed by the learned revision court naturally it will follow that he had to comply with the directions given by the learned revisional court and he should not do anything which runs counter to direction of revisional court. 9. 9. I have quoted above into extensor paragraph 15 of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge while disposing of criminal revision No.88 of 1982. From this paragraph, it becomes clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed the learned Executive Magistrate to depute a qualified survey knowing Amin to examine the actual line of control of possession over the disputed land arising out of the cadastral survey plot no. 760. In the concluding portion of this paragraph while remanding back the case to the court of the learned Magistrate, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the learned Magistrate to examine the claim of both the parties afresh, in he light of receipt of the report of the Amin and to pass the order in accordance with law. From this it would become clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not directed the learned Executive Magistrate to examine any witness since he was only to examine the claim of both the parties report on the receipt of the report of the Amin and not his examination. No doubt, it has been urged before me by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party that the report of the Amin could not have been taken into consideration unless it was properly proved in the court by his examination. There may be substance in the submission. However, the action of the learned Magistrate by examining the Amin in question namely Shri Sita Ram Pandit does not appear to be in terms of the order of the remand. 10. It further appears that the learned Executive Magistrate did not stop only with the examination of the Amin. He proceeded to examine another witness namely, Mangal Pandit, Record keeper who has produced some document also before him which were admitted in the evidence. It is not clear under what authority the learned Executive Magistrate had examined this witness since there is no such direction in the order of remand. As a matter of fact, the remand order clearly goes to show that the learned Magistrate was to pass the order afresh only after taking into account the oval and documentary evidence on record and the report of the Amin who was required to determine the actual line of control of possession over the disputed land arising out of the cadastral survey plot not. 760. 760. Under these circumstance the examination of Shri Mangal Pandit appears to be unwarranted and not in terms of the order of remand passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. My attention has also been drawn to the fact in the evidence of the Amin, Sita Ram Pandit has not only given the actual line of control of possession over the disputed land arising out of the cadastral survey plot no. 760. He has also mentioned in the report the structures standing over a portion of the land showing the other portion as vacant. In terms of the order passed by the learned revisional court he was not required to do so. 12. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that the learned Executive Magistrate has, in total disregard of the directions given by learned revisional court, examined two witnesses on remand and has taken into consideration their evidence. It was further submitted that learned Executive Magistrate has misdirected himself by taking into consideration the evidence of these two witnesses whom he was not required to examine. Further more it was pointed out that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order has not properly discussed the oral and documentary evidence appearing on the record. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 & 2 has submitted that a proceeding under section 145 of the Code is a summary proceeding and all that the learned Magistrate is required to do is to record a finding with respect to the possession. In doing so, he may not take into consideration all the evidence that is on the record. Also the learned counsel has drawn my attention to paragraph 6 of the impugned order in which according to him the evidence of the witnesses has been discussed, I find myself unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. While deciding the question of possession it is obligatory on the part of learned Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under section 145 of the code to take into account the evidence of the witnesses examined and also the document produced. It is only after doing so that he is expected to come to the correct conclusion. While deciding the question of possession it is obligatory on the part of learned Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under section 145 of the code to take into account the evidence of the witnesses examined and also the document produced. It is only after doing so that he is expected to come to the correct conclusion. So far as, paragraph 6 of the impugned order is concerned, I find that he has not properly stated these facts in the discussion which is sketchy and is not clear from the discussion whether he has taken into account the evidence of the witnesses or not. 13. For the reasons stated above, I find that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with the directions given by the learned revisional court and as such it has to be set aside. At this stage it has been pointed out that by the learned counsel for the opposite party that this proceeding is pending since last 8 years and therefore, no useful purpose to be served if it is allowed to continue any further. 14. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. If the police and the Magistrate find that even now there is apprehension of breach of the peace with respect to the disputed land it will be open to them to take any legal action even by starting a proceeding under section 145 of the code. Application allowed.