JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas dated 1.10.93, whereby he has allowed the appeal of respondent and set aside the order of learned S.D.M. Kishangarhbas dated 22.4.1992. 2. The brief facts to be noticed in short that one report was submitted before the SHO, Kherthal on 4.6.84 to the effect that there is a dispute over the possession of 5 shops and there is every possibility of breach of peace. After inspection of the site, the SHO, Kherthal had submitted a report to SDM, Kishangarhbas under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. that there is every possibility of breach of peace, therefore, the property in question be attached. On receipt of report from SHO, a preliminary order under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code, was passed and 5 shops in Khasra No. 1988 were attached on the same day i.e. 4.6.84, to prevent the breach of peace. Thereafter, the parties were directed to appear before him and file the statement along with evidence regarding the claim of possession of both the parties. In response to the direction of SDM, they filed the written statements and also adduced the evidence and produced the witnesses in their favour. 3. Considering the statements of all the parties and the statements of witnesses produced by both the parties and also on the basis of material evidence placed on record by both the parties, the learned SDM has found that two shops out of 5 shops were in possession of the petitioners. The respondent was permitted to construct 5 shops in 40' in length in khasra No. 1988 while these 5 shops were constructed in 47' in length in khasra No. 1988. In view of this matter, the SDM was of the opinion that petitioners were in possession of the disputed shops on 4.6.84. Therefore, he ordered that the possession of these 5 shops be restored to the petitioners. 4. In revision in the court of learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, the learned Judge was of the view that SDM, Kishangarhbas has ignored the relevant evidence of respondent Mahadev Prasad in respect of possession of 5 shops on 4.6.84. Not only that, but SDM has based his findings on inadmissible evidences. He has also based his finding on the evidences which were not even part of the record. & Sessions Judge, the learned Judge was of the view that SDM, Kishangarhbas has ignored the relevant evidence of respondent Mahadev Prasad in respect of possession of 5 shops on 4.6.84. Not only that, but SDM has based his findings on inadmissible evidences. He has also based his finding on the evidences which were not even part of the record. Therefore, he set aside the order of SDM and allowed the revision of the respondent. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this revision petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 8 biswas of land from old khasra No. 1988 (new khasra No. 1986) (hereinafter referred to as `khasra No. 1988') has been allotted to the petitioner Charamkala Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Kherthal (hereinafter referred to as `Samiti'). On that land, 17 shops were constructed and 5 shops were constructed in 1984. There is no dispute regarding 17 shops constructed by the petitioner Samiti. The limited dispute is only regarding 5 shops which were constructed in 1984. Mr. Mathur submitted that these 5 shops were constructed by the petitioner Samiti. In support of the claim of the petitioner Samiti, he placed reliance on some receipts regarding purchase of building material and also on the following documents:- "1."Ex.D.2 Measurement of the land under khasra No. 1988 and the details of the entire land comes under khasra No. 1988 (page 283 of the record). 2.Ex.D.3 Copy of the Ghatna Bahi (daily diary available on page 280). 3. Ex.D.4 Copy of the Patta through which land was allotted to party No. 2 (Page No. 279). 4. Ex.D.6 Dimensions given in Patta and the site plan available on Page 287. 5. Ex.D.8 Application moved by the Manager, Charam Kala Society before Tehsildar dated 8.10.1963 (available on page 283) 6. Ex.D.9 Copy of Exparcha 7. Ex.D.10 Copy of the judgment of the Managing Officer, Alwar dated 23.12.1964 (available on page 286)." 8. He further submitted that once the SDM found the fact that the petitioner Samiti is in possession, that finding should not be disturbed in revision. He also placed reliance on the decisions in case of The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Government of Palestine & Ors., AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207 ; Dharamkanny Nadar Siviseshamuthu & Ors. He also placed reliance on the decisions in case of The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Government of Palestine & Ors., AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207 ; Dharamkanny Nadar Siviseshamuthu & Ors. v. Mahalingam Nadar Gopalkrishna Nadar & Ors., AIR 1963 (Mad.) 147 ; Mrs. V.E. Argles v. Chhail Behari, AIR (36) 1949 Allahabad 230 and Ram Narayan Goswami & Ors. v. Biswanath Goswami, AIR 1959 (Cal.) 366 . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Sharma submitted that 5 biswas of land from Khasra No. 1988 was allotted to respondent Mahadev Prasad in 1964 and he deposited Rs. 605/- against the cost of plot of land in that Khasra No. 1988. Thereafter, the dispute arose regarding possession of a particular portion of khasra No.1988. Then proceedings were initiated under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. between the petitioner Samiti and respondent in 1971, and in March, 1976, the SDM has restored the possession to Mahadev Prasad as directed by SDM in his order in the proceedings under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, the petitioner Samiti has preferred revision against the order of SDM. The revision petition of the petitioner Samiti was dismissed. Then in 1980, the petitioner Samiti filed a civil suit it the court of Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No.l, Alwar for injunction against the respondent. That prayer of temporary injunction was rejected. Against that order, the petitioner Samiti filed revision in the court of Addl. District Judge. Their revision petition was also rejected and thereafter in 1984, the petitioner Samiti has withdrawn the civil suit No. 23/80. The permission for withdrawal was accepted and proceedings in civil suit were dropped on 12.3.84. Thereafter, the permission was sought for construction of shops from the Municipal Board, Kherthal by the respondent. The permission sought for was allowed and he constructed the shops. On 2.6.84, the members of the petitioner Samiti attacked on the respondent's son and one Jugal Kishore and took possession of two shops forcefully. The matter was reported to the police. Some members of the petitioner Samiti have been convicted for the offences under sections. 147, 448, 323 & 325 Indian Penal Code by the Special Judicial Magistrate vide its judgment dated 5.3.94. It is also submitted that out of 5 shops, two shops are given on rent by respondent to Ashok Kumar and Heman Das. Some members of the petitioner Samiti have been convicted for the offences under sections. 147, 448, 323 & 325 Indian Penal Code by the Special Judicial Magistrate vide its judgment dated 5.3.94. It is also submitted that out of 5 shops, two shops are given on rent by respondent to Ashok Kumar and Heman Das. In view of these facts, the possession of the respondent on these 5 shops is not in dispute. He also drew my attention to some bills regarding purchase of building material and also placed reliance on the following documents:- "R.1 (Ex.P.5) Order dated 7.7.64 of Managing Officer. R.2 Cash challan. R.3 (Ex. 23) - Order dated 29.3.76. R.4 (Ex. 24) - Ghatna Bahi dated 29.3.76. R.5.(Ex. 25) - Order dated 23.1.80. R.6.(Ex. 26) - Order dated 31.10.80. R.7 (Ex. 27) - Order dated 24.1.84. R.8 (Ex. 28) - Petitioners application in which he wants to withdraw his civil suit No. 23/80 dated 12.3.84. R.9 (Ex. 29) - Order dated 12.3.84. R.10 (Ex.32) - Map filed in civil suit No. 23/80. R.11(Ex.42) - Permission for construction of shops dated 12.4.84. R.12 - Order dated 5.3.94. R.13 - Order dated 5.3.94." 10. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. & Ors., Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 1985 page 57 ; Sheoram & Anr. v. The State of Raj. & Ors., Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1976 page 313 ; Ramswaroop v. Pitamber Dayal, WLN (UC) 1974 page 111 ; Kalu & Ors. v. Karnidan & Ors., 1990 (2) WLN page 181 ; Caetno Colaco v. Joao Rodrigues, A.I.R. 1966 Goa 32 and Jhunamal alias Devandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1973 . 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner Samiti Mr. Mathur has mainly placed reliance on Ex.D.2 measurement of the land under khasra No. 1988; Ex.D.3 copy of Ghatna Bahi; Ex.D.4 copy of patta relating to allotment of 8 biswas of land to the petitioner from khasra No. 1988; Ex.D.6 site plan of the land allotted to the petitioner; Es.D.10 order of Managing Officer wherein it has been found that the petitioner is in possession of 8 biswas of land. 12. 12. The only inference from the documents so relied by the counsel for the petitioner Samiti can be drawn that 8 biswas of land has been allotted to the petitioner Samiti from khasra No. 1988 and he is in possession of 8 biswas of land on the date of dispute and 17 shops have also been constructed on that land. But that does not mean that no land was allotted to respondent Mahadev Prasad from the same khasra number. Even the respondent has not disputed that 8 biswas of land was allotted to petitioner Samiti. Therefore, no doubt remains regarding the fact that 8 biswas of land has been allotted to the petitioner Samiti from Khasra No. 1988 and he is in possession of 8 biswas of land. But that does not mean that 5 biswas of land has not been allotted to respondent Mahadev Prasad. Whether Mahadev Prasad respondent was in possession or not before construction of 5 shops is to be considered taking into account the evidences relied upon by Shri Sharma, counsel for the respondent. 13. The submission of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent was in possession of the land since 1956 and on that basis, he was allotted 5 biswas of land from khasra No. 1988 and required to pay Rs. 605/- as cost of the land vide order of Managing Officer dated 7th July, 1964. The relevant portion of Ex.P.5 reads as under:- "The property situated in rural areas and possession of Shri Mahadev Prasad has been proved since before 1956 beyond any doubt. He is therefore entitled for the transfer of the property as Displaced person occupant of the Govt. value. I, therefore, order that he should pay Rs. 605.00 as the cost of land for the land in his occupation i.e. 5 Biswas as even Panchait has not claimed one biswas from the department and he should also pay rent @ 3% P. A. from Jan., 1950 as reported by the office as his occupation date." 14. Thereafter, some dispute arose on the possession of plots of land of both the parties in 1970 and criminal proceedings were initiated in the court of SDM, Kishangarhbas. Thereafter, some dispute arose on the possession of plots of land of both the parties in 1970 and criminal proceedings were initiated in the court of SDM, Kishangarhbas. After considering the various evidences, the SDM, Kishangarhbas has directed vide its order dated 29.3.76 that the possession on plot of land in khasra No. 1988 was of the respondent, which has been attached in proceedings under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code., the possession thereof be restored to respondent. In compliance of the order of SDM, the Tehsildar has complied with the directions and handed over the possession of plot of 5 biswas of land in khasra No. 1988 to the respondent Mahadev Prasad that is evident from Ghatna Bahi dated 29.3.76. The relevant portion of Ex.24 of Ghatna Bahi reads as under:- " bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k dzekad 200 fnukad 21-9-70 ds lanHkZ esa tks vkjkth [k0u0 1988 dqdZ fd;k Fkk mldk vkt fu.kZ; gksdj vkidks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd [k0u0 1988 okds [kSjFky jsyos QkWVd dh rjQ okyk ds tqt dks dqdhZ ls vifBr djds ikVhZ ua0 1 egknso izlkn iq= pUuhyky ok0lk0 [kSjFky dks fu;ekuqlkj laHkyk nsaA o fjiksVZ rkehyh rqjUr is'k djsaA 29-3-76 ,l0Mh0@lc fMohtuy eftLVs~V] fd'kux<+ckl vkt eqrkfcd vkns'k Jheku miftyk/kh'k ,oa rglhynkj fd'kux<+okl [k0ua0 1988 okds [kSjFky jsyos QkWVd dh rjQ okyk tqt dks dqdhZ ls ckxqtkj gqvk gSA Jh egknso izlkn iq= pqUuhyky ok0lk0 [kSjFky dks fuEu gkftjku ds le{k ekSds ij laHkyk;k x;kA ,l0Mh0@& fujh0Hkq0v0 29-3-76 " 15. From the evidences referred above, there is no dispute remains that possession of plot of 5 biswas of land in khasra No. 1988 has been handed over to respondent on spot by Tehsildar. Against that order, the petitioner Samiti has preferred the revision in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.l, Alwar. The Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 has also dismissed the revision on 23.1.80 and affirmed the order of SDM dated 29.3.76. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner Samiti filed a civil suit praying for injunction against respondent Mahadev Prasad. The T.I. application has been rejected by the Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas vide order dated 31.10.80 that is evident from Ex.26. The relevant portion of Ex. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner Samiti filed a civil suit praying for injunction against respondent Mahadev Prasad. The T.I. application has been rejected by the Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas vide order dated 31.10.80 that is evident from Ex.26. The relevant portion of Ex. 26 reads as under:- " izLrqr izdj.k esa miyC/k mHk;iu ds 'kiFk i= ,oa nLrkostksa ls oknksa dk izFke n`"V;ksa esa dksbZ dsl cuuk izrhr ugha gksrk gSA izfroknh dk iw.kZr;k dk izFken`"V;k dsl cukuk izrhr gksrk gSA mldk Hkwfe ij vkf/kiR; Hkh gSA uhao Hkjh tkuk Hkh fl) gS rFkk lqfo/kk dk larqyu izfroknh ds i{k esa gS ;fn izfroknh dks gqDebbErukbZ panjkstk ls ikcUn dj fn;k tkrk gS rks oknh dh vis{kk izfroknh dk vtgn gkfu vf/kd gksxhA gekjs fopkj ls oknh dk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 28-01-80 okLrs fufeZr djus vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA " 17. Thereafter, the petitioner Samiti has gone in revision in the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas. Learned ADJ has also upheld the order of learned Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas vide order dated 24.1.84 (Ex.27), and in March,1984, the Secretary of the petitioner Samiti has prayed for withdrawal of suit and prayed that the case be closed without any further proceedings. On the basis of application of petitioner Samiti Ex.28, learned Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate has dropped the proceedings in civil suit No. 23/80. 18. From the discussion of aforesaid evidences, the only conclusion can be reached that 13 biswas of land was available for allotment from khasra No.1988, the petitioner Samiti was allotted 8 biswas of plot of land from khasra No.1988 and 5 biswas of plot of land has been allotted to respondent Mahadev Prasad from the same khasra number and Mahadev Prasad is in possession of that plot of land at least from 29.3.76 onwards. No contrary evidence has been brought on record. 19. Thereafter, the respondent has sought permission for construction of shops on the plot of land. The permission sought for construction of shops, by Mahadev Prasad respondent, has been allowed by the Municipal Board, Kherthal, that is evident from Ex.42. Thereafter, 5 shops were constructed. Out of 5 shops, two shops were rented out to Ashok Kumar and Heman Das. The rent deeds are also placed on record i.e. Ex. The permission sought for construction of shops, by Mahadev Prasad respondent, has been allowed by the Municipal Board, Kherthal, that is evident from Ex.42. Thereafter, 5 shops were constructed. Out of 5 shops, two shops were rented out to Ashok Kumar and Heman Das. The rent deeds are also placed on record i.e. Ex. P.52 rent deed incase of Ashok Kumar, and Ex.P.53, rent deed in case of Heman Das. 20. Both the parties have also produced receipts of the bills of building material purchased for construction of shops, but the perusal of receipts reveals that there is some discrepancy in the receipts of the respondent, as well as, in case of receipts given by different persons to the petitioner, on a common paper of school note-book, appears to be doubtful and even SDM has not placed much reliance to the bills of receipts produced by both the parties. 21. The SDM has basically decided the case in favour of petitioner Samiti on two counts. One photograph shows that two shops out of 5 were in possession of petitioner Samiti on 4.6.84 and the permission for construction of shops were given to respondent on 40' in length, while the construction of shops found on 47', i.e. 7' more. Therefore, he doubted the possession of the respondent on 4.6.84. 22. If we go by sequence of happenings that in khasra No. 1988,13 biswas of land was available for allotment. 8 biswas of land has been allotted to the petitioner Samiti. They constructed 17 shops and in 1964, 5 biswas was allotted to respondent from that land. He deposited the cost of that land to the Managing Officer. Then a dispute arose regarding possession in their plots of land and proceedings under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. were initiated and after completing the proceedings, the SDM has ordered that possession of 5 biswas of land in khasra No. 1988 towards north near railway crossing be restored to respondent Mahadev Prasad. In compliance of the order of SDM, the possession of 5 biswas of land towards north has been restored to Mahadev Prasad. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. were initiated and after completing the proceedings, the SDM has ordered that possession of 5 biswas of land in khasra No. 1988 towards north near railway crossing be restored to respondent Mahadev Prasad. In compliance of the order of SDM, the possession of 5 biswas of land towards north has been restored to Mahadev Prasad. If we see the site plan produced in the civil court in civil suit No. 23/80, it is evident that only 17 shops have been shown towards the south of khasra No. 1988 and an open plot of land towards north near railway crossing has been shown as open plot of land, the possession of this plot of land has been restored to Mahadev Prasad under the order of SDM on 29.3.76. There is no iota of evidence that the respondent Mahadev Prasad has been dispossessed from 5 biswas of plot of land, towards north in khasra No. 1988 till 1984. In 1984,5 shops have been constructed after due permission, by Mahadev Prasad. Therefore, there is no occasion to the petitioner Samiti to construct 5 shops on a plot of land which is undisputedly in possession of respondent Mahadev Prasad from 29.3.76. Not only that, the permission for construction of shops have been given by the competent authority i.e. Municipal Board, Kherthal to respondent and no such permission has been shown and brought on record by the petitioner Samiti. Therefore, mere showing some building material receipts/bills is not enough to prove the possession of these 5 disputed shops. 23. The next reason given by SDM is that the permission was only for 40' in length in plot of land in khasra No. 1988, while the construction is in 47' in length, that is 7' extra. This also cannot be given much weight on the material on record in favour of the respondent regarding construction of shops. If the respondent has excess construction by 7' from the permission given by the Municipal Board, Kherthal, he will face the consequence, in accordance with law, but once the permission is given for construction of shops to respondent on a plot of land allotted to him in khasra No. 1988, mere fact that he has some extra construction is not sufficient to disbelieve the possession of respondent over 5 disputed shops. 24. 24. It is also pertinent to note that out of 5 shops only, the locks of the petitioner Samiti found on two shops. If all these shops are constructed by the petitioner Samiti, why they have not put the locks on all the 5 shops. No explanation has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary, it is found that out of 5 shops, two shops are rented out to Ashok Kumar and Heman Das by respondent. 25. It is true that the photograph, which is not exhibited, reveals that two shops were in possession of these petitioners on 4.6.84. But whether it can be said that Samiti was In possession of these two shops for the purpose of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code on 4.6.84 ? 26. The proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code provides that if any party has forcibly thrown out from the possession of the disputed property in preceding two months from the date of the report of incident, then Magistrate shall treat the party so dispossessed forcibly in preceding two months from the date of the forcibly possession that that party was in possession for the purpose of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The relevant proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:- "Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub- section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1)." 27. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Sharma has submitted that FIR was lodged on 2.6.84 by respondent in Police Station Kherthal to the effect that the respondent has 5 shops near railway crossing. Out of 5, two shops have been given on rent and in three shops, younger brother was getting electric fittings. At that time, the members of the petitioner Samiti viz. Hardev Sahai, Bhullan Ram, Motiram, Khayali, Prabhati, Heeralal, Pratap, Harla, Daluki, Mukli, Sarti and Gangadevi attacked on his brother. They have also forcibly taken the possession of two shops and put their locks. At that time, the members of the petitioner Samiti viz. Hardev Sahai, Bhullan Ram, Motiram, Khayali, Prabhati, Heeralal, Pratap, Harla, Daluki, Mukli, Sarti and Gangadevi attacked on his brother. They have also forcibly taken the possession of two shops and put their locks. The case was registered under sections. 147, 448, 325 & 323 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The SHO also has reported the matter to SDM for proceedings under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. In a criminal case, finally the members of the petitioner Samiti named above are convicted for the offences under sections. 147, 448, 323 & 325 Indian Penal Code. The members of petitioner Samiti have also lodged FIR against respondents, but they are acquitted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. 28. While convicting the members of petitioner Samiti, the Special Judicial Magistrate has also gave finding regarding possession. The relevant portion of order dated 5.3.1994 reads as under:- " vr% iz=koyh ij miyC/k mHk;iu }kjk izLrqr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lkT; ls ;g lkfcr gS fd ?kVuk ds oDr fookfnr nqdkuksa ij eqLrxksl in dk dCtk Fkk ,oa fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa esa eqdnesackth esa vlQy jgus ds i'pkr vfHk;qDrx.k us eqLrxksl in ds }kjk cukbZ nqdkuksa ij dCtk djus ds fy, fnukad 2-6-84 dks voS/k leqg cukdj tqxy o jke dks lk/kkj.k ,oa ?kksj migfr dkfjr dh " 29. From the aforesaid judgment and also the evidences referred above, no scope of doubt remains that till 2.6.84, 5 shops were in possession of the respondent. If the petitioner Samiti has focibly taken the possession of two shops out of 5 on 2.6.84, Samiti cannot be treated in possession of 5 shops on 4.6.84. 30. Considering the relevant facts discussed above, I am of the opinion that there is 110 scope to interfere in the impugned order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas who has set aside the order of SDM, Kishangarhbas. 31. Mr. Sharma has also submitted that while in a civil suit No. 23/80 in the court of Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, no case is made out for possession of the petitioner Samiti, the T.I. application was rejected by Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas. In revision, even the learned Addl. Session Judge No.l, Alwar has also affirmed the order of Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, no case is made out for possession of the petitioner Samiti, the T.I. application was rejected by Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas. In revision, even the learned Addl. Session Judge No.l, Alwar has also affirmed the order of Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate and refused to attach the property and finally that suit has been withdrawn by the petitioner Samiti, the parallel proceedings under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. should have not been entertained by SDM. He placed reliance on various authorities including the decision of the Apex Court. No doubt, it is a settled law that while the matter is sub judice in the civil court, no parallel proceedings should be entertained by the Executive Magistrate under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. Here not only the parallel proceedings were pending but no prima facie case was found by the civil courts regarding possession of the petitioner Samiti and even the suit has been withdrawn. Thereafter, normally no justification remains to SDM to entertain the proceedings and decide the issue of possession. That too, a contrary finding has been given in spite of the findings of SDM, when the first time the proceedings under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. were initiated and also the finding of civil court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the SDM was not justified at all in giving the finding of possession in favour of petitioner Samiti which is contrary to the material On record and the finding of the SDM is perverse. Therefore, they can be interfered with, even in revisional jurisdiction. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas has rightly set aside his order on the basis of material on record as discussed above.To sum up:- (1) In old khasra No. 1988, 8 biswas of land was allotted to petitioner Samiti. They have constructed 17 shops; (2) 5 biswas of land from khasra No. 1988 was also allotted to respondent Mahadev Prasad and he paid Rs. 605/- as cost of that land. The possession of the plot of land of 5 biswas has been restored to respondent Mahadev Prasad on 29.3.76. Thereafter, he remained in possession throughout on the plot of land till construction of shops; (3) The respondent sought permission for construction of shops on that plot of land. The permission sought for was allowed and he constructed impugned 5 shops on the plot of land. Thereafter, he remained in possession throughout on the plot of land till construction of shops; (3) The respondent sought permission for construction of shops on that plot of land. The permission sought for was allowed and he constructed impugned 5 shops on the plot of land. The respondent was dispossessed from two shops on 2.6.84 forcibly by the members of the petitioner Samiti. In view of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code., the respondent shall be treated in possession on the date of attachment; (4) When the respondent is found in possession of these 5 shops, while upholding the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas, it is directed that the possession of these 5 shops be handed over to respondent Mahadev Prasad immediately. The revision petition is dismissed as indicated above.Revision dismissed. *******