Judgment P. K. Sarin, J. 1. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 10-9-90 passed by Executive Magistrate, Pakur is T. R.30/90 under Sec.145 of the Code of criminal Procedure by which the learned Magistrate has declared possession of the opposite parties over plot no.882 of village Pakur. 2. It appears that proceedings under Sec.144 of the Code of criminal Procedure were initiated for a portion of plot No.882 lying on the southern side of plot. The measurement of the said portion is 20 x 20. Subsequently the proceeding were converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 25-1-82. The opposite parties were first party in the case while petitioners were second party in the case. 3. The case of the first party was that the first party No.2 Smt. Ganga devi was on record as successor-in-in-terest of recorded tenant Shri Bhola nath alias Chandrashekhar Mishra and she has been in peaceful possession over the case through the father of first party no.1 earlier and at present through first No.1 who manages her all her property. It was further alleged that her possession over the same had been accepted by SDO Civil, Pakur and Deputy commissioner, Dumka in settlement case No.150/68-69 in which one Umesh choudhary prayed for settlement of plot no.882 in his favour. The application of umesh Choudhary was rejected when the SDO ordered to deposit arrears of rent which was deposited by Smt. Ganga devi. It was further alleged that in the land encroachment Case No.22/68-69 of L. R. D. C. Court, Pakur, the proceedings were dropped when the plea was made that Smt. Ganga Devi was in actual physical possession over plot No.882. 4. Petitioners second party in their written statement alleged that they were in possession of the disputed land which lies adjacent to their houses. It was pleaded that the second party is in physical possession since last 25 years by growing vegetables over it and by putting idols of different god and Goddesses for drying purposes. It was further pleaded that the second party belonged to privileged tenant. It was pleaded that the second party is in physical possession since last 25 years by growing vegetables over it and by putting idols of different god and Goddesses for drying purposes. It was further pleaded that the second party belonged to privileged tenant. It was alleged that the recorded tenant had sold plot No.882 in the year 1959 to one Smt. Kamla bala Dasi wife of one Paresh Rajan ghosal of Howrah by a registered saledeed and as the recorded tenant had transferred the property, the first party no.2 could not claim possession over the said plot and it is only Pureshawar kamla Bala Dasi or her successor who could claim possession over the same. 5. The first party of the case examined four witnesses while second party petitioners examined six witnesses. Documentary evidence was also produced. The documentary evidence fill by first party included rent receipts and certified copies of orders of different cases. The documentary evidence produced by second party petitioners included certified copy of TR. No.190/81, certified copy of registered sale-deed of no.863/1 and copy of petition and report. 6. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that by the putting idols occasionally for then during purposes and colouring over the disputed land which was lying vacant would not mean possession of the second party petitioners and possessions continued with first party No.2 successor of the recorded tenant. Accordingly, he declared possession of first party No.2. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the recorded tenant had transferred the dissented land therefore, his possession was lost and the successor-in-interest of recorded tenant cannot pray possession over land which had been transferred. 8. In proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. the title is not to be adjudicated upon. Only possession has to be seen. Despite transfer of the land the name of the transferee does not appear to be ever mutated and the land continued to be recorded in the name of chandra Shekhar Mishra. The SDO ordered arrears of rent to be deposited by the heirs of recorded tenant in the proceeding of settlement initiated on an application of one Umesh Choudhary. The rent was accordingly deposited which shows that despite the transfer made in 1938 the transferee did not come in possession of the property and the possession continued with the recorded tenant. The SDO ordered arrears of rent to be deposited by the heirs of recorded tenant in the proceeding of settlement initiated on an application of one Umesh Choudhary. The rent was accordingly deposited which shows that despite the transfer made in 1938 the transferee did not come in possession of the property and the possession continued with the recorded tenant. There is no evidence that the recorded tenant or his heirs were ever evicted by any person from the land in question. Therefore, merely by executing sale-deed it cannot be said in the present case that the possession of recorded tenant is continued and the transferee entered into possession. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the land was vacant land as has been observed by the learned Magistrate himself and the learned Magistrate has also observed that the party need to keep the idols on the (sic) for drying purposes and colouring over the disputed land which was lying vacant as such the possession of second party ought to have been upheld. 9. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order has observed that the disputed land lies vacant and the second party uses it occasionally for keeping idols for drying purposes. However, he observed further that idol making is not whole time job for the second party rather it is done in the Kali Puja, Laxmi puja and Saraswati Puja and it does not give any right over the disputed land to the second party. The reasoning given by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be parverne. The disputed land is only part of plots No.682 which has a total area of 0-4-5. It cannot be said that it was not in possession of the recorded tenant of the entire area of plot No.682. If any field is left vacant by the tenant and the tenant of the adjoining field occasional uses the same for keeping agricultural implements it would not mean that the tenant of the adjoining field in possessing that vacant field and the possession of the recorded tenant has been lost. Any land lying vacant would not result into loss of possession of the owner. Therefore, the learned magistrate has not erred in holding that the possession was continued with the recorded tenant of the land. 10. Any land lying vacant would not result into loss of possession of the owner. Therefore, the learned magistrate has not erred in holding that the possession was continued with the recorded tenant of the land. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has next contended that Smt. Ganga Devi was residing at Varanasi and actually the opposite-party No. l wants to grab the land and Smt. Ganga devi or her successor-in-interest cannot be said to be in possession of the disputed land. Merely owner residing at a different places would not result in leasing the property. It is the case of the first party that the property was being managed by Smt. Ganga Devi through first party No.1 Jagat Narayan Upadh-yaya and is through his father. If the property is being managed on behalf of the owner by any person deputed by the owner that management would be on bbehelf of the owner and the owner can not besaid to have lost possession because property is got managed through another person. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the order in the settlement case was not set aside by higher court. No such order appears to have been filed on record before the learned Magistrate. Even if the order in the settlement case has been set aside, it is not shown that the land was ever settled treating the same to be vacant land and not possessed by the recorded tenant. Therefore, the contention on that more does not carry any force. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the order so as to warrant any interference by this court is exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is dismissed accordingly. Revision Dismissed.