Judgment S. Hoda, J. 1. -this application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the order dated 19-6-1989 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Begusarai, in a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code by which the possession of the opposite party No.1 has been declared. 2. On the basis of report dated 11-10-1983 from Sarpanch Bhairwarpansala gram Panchayat, a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Code was drawn up on 26-10-1983 which was subsequently, on 23-12-1983, converted into a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code in respect of three bighas four dhurs of land comprising of Khesra Nos.549, 55c and 564 of khata no.89 of village Manjhanpur P. S. Balia. The lands in dispute were recorded fin the name of one Gyan Prasad Singh and Baldeo Singh. Baldeo Singh died issueless during the life time of the recorded tenant, gaya Prasad Singh, and hence the entire property of Baldeo Singh including the disputed lands were inherited by Gaya Prasad Singh, who, subsequently died leaving behind his only son Badri Singh who inherited the property after the death of his father. After the death of Badri Singh the first party that is the petitioners, being close relations, are in continuous peaceful possession of the disputed lands. 3. The case of the second party-opposite party No.1 is that he claims ms possession on the basis of purchase of the land in question which was in mortgage by redeeming the land from mortgagee on payment of mortgaged money on 9-6-1983. 4. Before the Magistrate both the parties appeared and filed their written statements and produced oral as well as the documentary evidence. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, held the possession of opposite party No.1. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No.149 of 1989 before the Sessions Judge, begusarai. The said revision application was dismissed in-limine on 6-7-1989. Petitioners, after having lost before the Sessions Judge, have filed this application for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19-6-1989. There is no prayer for quashing the order of the Sessions judge passed in the aforesaid criminal revision. 6. The said revision application was dismissed in-limine on 6-7-1989. Petitioners, after having lost before the Sessions Judge, have filed this application for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19-6-1989. There is no prayer for quashing the order of the Sessions judge passed in the aforesaid criminal revision. 6. Miss M. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the learned Magistrate has acted illegally in declaring the possession of opposite party No.1 by going into the question of title. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Y. C. Verma, appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1, has submitted that the petitioners, having already filed revision before the Sessions Judge, could not have moved this court under Sec.482 of the Code as it amounts to second revision. He has also submitted that the proceeding was initiated in 1983 and after lapse of ten years it will not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Even on merit, he has submitted, there is no illegality in the impugned order as the learned Magistrate, after considering the oral evidence, was of the view that the same is evenly balanced and as such he has looked into the documentary evidence and on the basis of the said document he came to the conclusion that opposite party No.1 was in possession. 8. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, I have perused the impugned order. The learned Magistrate, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has held as follows : "keeping in view all the above facts and circumstances, claims and counter-claims of both the parties, 1 hold and believe that oral evidence of both the parties as to actual physical possession over the dispute with reference to the date when the present proceeding was drawn rests on equal footing and admits of no actual possession and under such a situation evidence as to title has to be considered. Evidence of title in respect of the disputed land elaborately dealt above definitely goes in favour of the second party and the first party have failed to disprove that. Under such a circumstance, I declare possession of the second party over the disputed land as the second party are entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law and all disturbances of such possession are forbidden. Under such a circumstance, I declare possession of the second party over the disputed land as the second party are entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law and all disturbances of such possession are forbidden. " Thus, from the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate it appears that he was not able to come to the conclusion as to which party in possession on the basis of oral evidence. The learned Magistrate has erred in going into the question of title because the learned Magistrate was not supposed to examine the claim of the party with regard to the title. It will further appear from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate that he has declared the possession of opposite party No.1 because the opposite party No.1 is entitled to possession. This, in my view, is against the provisions contained in Sec.145 of the Code. The Magistrate was to come to the conclusion as to which party was in possession not as to who is entitled to possession, Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. If the Magistrate was not able to decide as to which party was in possession he could have taken recourse to Sec.146 of the code. 9 There is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of opposite party No.1. Mr. Verma, in support of his contention, has relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 381, Jagir Singh V/s. Ranbir singh, for the possession once a revisional remedy is availed of by a party then that party cannot take recourse to a second revision in the garb of section 482 of the Code. The aforesaid decision does not support the contention of the learned counsel. The second decision relied upon by Dr. Verma is AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47, Mdhu Limaya V/s. State of Maharashtra. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The third decision relied upon by Mr. Verma is 1991, (1) Patna Law Journal Report 36 Ram Chandra Rai v. State of Bihar. That too has no application in the present case. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The third decision relied upon by Mr. Verma is 1991, (1) Patna Law Journal Report 36 Ram Chandra Rai v. State of Bihar. That too has no application in the present case. In the aforesaid case the proceedings under Sec.145 of the Code remained pending for a pretty long time and in that situation this court held that after the same has remained pending for more than seven years and there was no apprehension of breach of peace then in-that situation it was directed that the proceeding should be dropped. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 19-6-1989 passed in Case No, 1391 M/83 is quashed and the case is remitted back to the Executive Magistrate, Begusarai, to hear afresh the parties and pass order in accordance with law. In case the Magistrate is not able to decide as to which party was in possession on the relevant date he can take recourse to the provisions contained in Sec.146 of the Code. 11. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Criminal Miscellaneous Application allowed.