JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - The petitioner challenges the legality of the order dated 31.12.1994 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Cuttack, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1057 of 1992 declaring possession of the opposite party in the disputed land. 2. The present opposite party was the petitioner in the Court below. She initiated a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C., against the present petitioner which was later converted into one under Section 145, Cr.P.C. In the petition, it has been alleged by the opposite party (1st party) that while she was in possession of her land measuring Ao.09 decimals out of plot No. 19, the present petitioner for the purpose of construction of a boundary wall was collecting building materials. The learned Magistrate served notice on the present petitioner who appeared before him and contended that he purchased Ao. 20 decimals of land out of plot No. 9 by registered sale deed dated 16.7.1975 and was in possession thereof. The land of the first party lay on the southern boundary of his land and there is a boundary dispute between the parties. There has been measurement of the land possessed by the respective parties not only once but twice, and every time it was detected that it was the present opposite party who had encroached upon the land of the present petitioner. There has been an amicable settlement between the parties over this boundary dispute but to no effect. It is alleged that the present petitioner produced the Amin before the learned Magistrate for examination but the Magistrate instead of examining the said Amin closed the case and by the impugned order declared possession of the present opposite party in the disputed land. It has been contended on behalf of the present petitioner that the dispute between the parties is essentially a boundary dispute. There had been measurement of the land twice by the Amin and on both the occasions the Amin found that it was the present opposite party who had encroached upon his land. It has been further contended that the learned Magistrate was not justified on closing the case without examining the Amin. It has been further contended that the learned Magistrate was wrong in declaring the possession of the opposite party in respect of the entire disputed land. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. It has been further contended that the learned Magistrate was not justified on closing the case without examining the Amin. It has been further contended that the learned Magistrate was wrong in declaring the possession of the opposite party in respect of the entire disputed land. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. It appears that the opposite party who was the petitioner in the Court below has initiated this proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C., but it was later converted into a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. In the said petition, it has been alleged that the present petitioner tried to encroach upon the northern portion of her land and was trying to make a boundary wall thereof. In the said petition, the schedule of the disputed land has been fully described giving the area in dispute as well as khata number and plot number. Moreover, the schedule of land indicated the boundary of the land in her possession. It appears that the learned Magistrate considered the oral evidence adduced by the parties and declared possession of the present opposite party in the entire disputed land. Learned counsel appearing for the present petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate fell in error in not allowing the present petitioner to examine the Amin who had twice measured the land and found some encroachment by the present opposite party. Learned counsel for the present opposite party submits that the disputed land is surrounded by walls on all sides and it is the present petitioner who is trying to encroach upon the land of the present opposite party by raising a boundary wall. It is not disputed that this is essentially a boundary dispute. The land of the opposite party is surrounded by boundary walls on all sides. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party is in possession of the land covered by the boundary walls. If the petitioner feels and finds that some portion of his land has been encroached upon by the opposite party he may seek relief in a civil Court. So far as the present proceeding is concerned, it is found that on the materials available on record, learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in declaring possession of the opposite party in regard to the disputed land as specified in the schedule to the petition. So far as the present proceeding is concerned, it is found that on the materials available on record, learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in declaring possession of the opposite party in regard to the disputed land as specified in the schedule to the petition. In that view of the matter, no illegality is noticed in the impugned order and as such, the petitioner is entitled to no relief whatsoever. The revision application fails and it is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed