JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this case the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsuguda, on 2-8-1988 and 20-12-1988, as wen as the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure have been challenged. 2. The Petitioner was a member of the second part and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were members of the first party in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure relating to plot No. 26314824 appertaining to khata No. 106717 of mouza Ektali. Both the parties claimed possession in respect thereof. After they submitted their written statements in the proceeding, the Magistrate made local enquiry of the disputed land in the presence of the parties and their advocate and on the basis of facts noticed by him, he declared possession of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by order dated 2-8-1988. Consequent upon the order, a Revenue Inspector was deputed to effect delivery of possession of the disputed land to the successful party. But it was not possible on his part to do so, because the description of the land, possession of which was to be delivered, was neither specific nor definite by actual measurement and the description thereof in the order of the Magistrate was vague. Accordingly, he submitted a report, whereupon the Magistrate passed a further order on 20-12-1988 instructing the Revenue Inspector to demarcate the land in consultation with the parties and the police. Against the above order a revision was carried to the learned Sessions Judge who was not inclined to interfere on the ground that the order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was not challenged in the higher Court and the aggrieved party may approach the civil Court far declaration of his title and possession according to law. 3. On perusal of the records of the proceeding, certain peculiar features emerge. After bath the parties submitted their written statements, the Magistrate passed an order on 3-5-1988 to make a local enquiry u/s 148, Code of Criminal Procedure an the same day at 5.00 p.m. and gave notice to the advocates. After making the local enquiry, he deferred passing of the order and actually passed the same an 2-8-1988. In the order itself he drew a sketch map which was not to the scale and with reference thereto declared the possession of apposite party Nos. After making the local enquiry, he deferred passing of the order and actually passed the same an 2-8-1988. In the order itself he drew a sketch map which was not to the scale and with reference thereto declared the possession of apposite party Nos. 1 and 2, and accordingly directed delivery of possession. It does not appear from the records that he made a record of his local enquiry. Therefore, it was not known what he had noticed and how he utilised his knowledge in arriving at the conclusion as to the finding of possession in favour of apposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The sketch map drawn by-him which was vague and not clear did not help the Revenue Inspector in effecting delivery of possession. In fact, an account of such vagueness and as the record discloses it had not been passible to effect delivery of possession for effective- compliance with the order passed u/s 145. The Magistrate is required to pass a specific and definite order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure which can be executed. 1? the order is incapable of execution the party in whose favour it is passed does not derive any benefit out of it. It has to be termed as an order not in accordance with law. The order dated 2-8-1988 passed by the Magistrate is an order of this nature and, on the face of it, it is unassailable as vague, unspecific and indefinite. 4. Section 148 clothes a Magistrate with jurisdiction to make local enquiry either by himself or through a subordinate Magistrate for purposes of Sections 145, 146 and 147, Code of Criminal Procedure. The report of local enquiry may be read as evidence in the case. The abject of local enquiry is to understand and appreciate the topography or the land in dispute in order to aid the Magistrate in appreciating the evidence offered by parties in Court. But it cannot take the place of legal evidence, much less the result thereof can be used as a basis for the decision. The report of a local enquiry becomes a part of the proceeding and the party affected by it is entitled to be acquainted with it so as to have an opportunity of rebutting the report if he thinks necessary to do so. The report of a local enquiry becomes a part of the proceeding and the party affected by it is entitled to be acquainted with it so as to have an opportunity of rebutting the report if he thinks necessary to do so. The Magistrate making a local enquiry must make a note of what he saw and must place it on the record so that the parties may be in a position to know what impression he derived by such enquiry. It is possible that the Magistrate may have formed a wrong impression and if the result of the inspection is recorded and made known to the parties, they shall be in a position to remove the wrong impression by adducing evidence. A Magistrate cannot base his decision merely on the report of enquiry without recording evidence. It is incumbent on his part to give opportunity to the parties so as to receive all such evidence as may be produced by them and take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary so as to decide whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute on the date of passing of the preliminary order. The report of enquiry is in aid of such evidence and not a substitute for it. An identical matter came up for consideration before this Court as reported in 1989 (3) Crimes 698 Sanapalla Kamayya and Ors. v. Bamidi Rajanna and Ors., in which it was held as follows: Usually a local inspection is done after the evidence is dosed and if the Court feels that for the purpose of appreciation of the evidence and to know the exact topography etc., the local inspection may be necessary. In such a case the Court after local inspection shall prepare a memorandum of local inspection and Serve the copies to both the sides and afford them the opportunity to file their objections, if any, and the memorandum is to be finalised after hearing and consideration of the objections and thereafter the Magistrate may rely on such memorandum of local inspection for appreciation of the evidence already on record. In this case there is no evidence and before recording of evidence, the Executive Magistrate proceeded to the house in question and held local inspection. In this case there is no evidence and before recording of evidence, the Executive Magistrate proceeded to the house in question and held local inspection. After local inspection the Magistrate did not prepare any memorandum of inspection and did not serve any copy of such memorandum of inspection on the parties enabling them to file their objections. The learned Executive Magistrate, however, utilised his personal knowledge gathered by local inspection in disposing of the case, although such a procedure is quite illegal and unwarranted. It may be mentioned here that if the Magistrate acquired some knowledge personally in course of a proceeding, he cannot utilise his knowledge for disposal of the case, but if he feels that such knowledge may be necessary for effective disposal of the case, he may transfer the case from his file to another Magistrate and testify to what he has acquired by local inspection and then that evidence of the Magistrate can be accepted as materials on record. 5. The Magistrate did not at all look at and consider the provisions of Sections 145 and 148 and the underlying spirit of law. He erroneously thought that local enquiry was a good substitute for evidence. This- is another ground why the order passed u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be sustained. 6. It is true that the main order passed, u/s 145 on 2-8-1988 was not challenged in revision. But if the order is allowed to be retained, on account of its vagueness and indefiniteness, it will entail miscarriage of justice to both the parties, in that instead of dispute between the parties coming to an end, it will aggravate because the losing party will not allow delivery of possession and the successful party cannot either legally take possession by actual measurement. Therefore, in exercise of inherent powers conferred by Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary for this Court to interfere and vacate the orders dated 3-5-1988, 2-8-1988 and all subsequent orders relating to the proceeding passed by the Magistrate. Consequently, the revisional order has also to be set aside. In my view, it is a fit case for remand, so that the parties shall be in a position to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases and, if the Magistrate would deem it judicially necessary to make a local enquiry, he may enable himself to do so. Consequently, the revisional order has also to be set aside. In my view, it is a fit case for remand, so that the parties shall be in a position to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases and, if the Magistrate would deem it judicially necessary to make a local enquiry, he may enable himself to do so. The parties must, therefore, be relegated to the position as on 3-5-1988 minus the direction of the local enquiry. 7. In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the case is remanded to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsuguda, for disposal afresh in accordance with law in, the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before him on 5-3-1990 for directions. The lower Courts records be sent back forthwith. Case allowed and remanded. Final Result : Allowed