JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. This revision is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission with the active participation of learned Counsel appearing fro both the parties. The order of learned Executive Magistrate, Sambalpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 1983 is under challenge in this revision. That was a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') which was decided in favor of the first-party opposite party. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the impugned order is bad in law, inasmuch as learned Executive Magistrate without proper assessment of the evidence in record and solely basing on the report of the Revenue Inspector disposed of the case in favor of the opposite party. On perusal of the impugned order, aforesaid contentions is not found to be correct inasmuch as learned Executive Magistrate referred to oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and did not record the finding on possession solely on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector. 4. Object of a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code is to prevent breach of peace concerning a dispute relating to any land or water or boundaries thereof. Thus, while adjudicating such a dispute, the concerned Magistrate neither decides conclusively the right, title and interest claimed by neither the rival parties, nor its finding on possession is conclusive in nature. Permanent solution to such dispute can be availed by any of the parties by approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction having the authority and power to adjudicate the matter relating to right, title, interest and possession including the relief of recovery of possession. 5. In the absence of any illegality in the impugned order or perverse, approach to the evidence in record, it is not necessary for the provisional Court to reassess the evidence in record or to disturb the finding on possession. As stated above, aggrieved party, if so advised, may approach the competent Court of jurisdiction to decide the factum of title and possession. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the criminal revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed