( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 05/11/2004 passed by the learned executive Magistrate, Siliguri, in M. P. Case No. 94 of 2004. ( 2 ) CASE of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is the Chowkidar and caretaker of the property recorded in R. S. Plot No. 3561 of Mouza Siliguri, which is surrounded by pucca brick built wall, 8 feet height with iron gate along with structure where the petitioner No. 1 is residing with his family members. The owners of the said property enjoyed their proprietary right through the caretaker appointed by them. They were in possession of the said property through the petitioners. ( 3 ) ONE Munilal Shaw was the absolute owner of the land who took settlement of the same in the year 1926 from the then zamindar of Katwa and as at that time there was no survey settlement within the limits of Siliguri P. S. , so all the transactions of the lands, used to be made with reference to boundaries and with approximate areas. By virtue of the said settlement. Munilal Shaw, since deceased, was in possession and occupation of the land in question with the consent of the land owner and also on renewal of his settlement till the interest of the landlord/erstwhile owner vested in the State by operation of law with effect from 15. 4. 1955 as per provisions of W. B. E. A. Act, 1953. Name of munilal Shaw was recorded in respect of the case property in the R. S. Settlement showing him as in possession of the said property. On the death of Munilal shaw, the property devolved upon his four sons and their names were recorded in respect of the land and structure, standing on the case property, with Siliguri municipal Corporation. The heirs of Munilal Shaw paid upto date Municipal taxes. ( 4 ) THERE was a registered deed of partition amongst the" heirs of Munilal shaw and the ownership of the said land devolved upon Surya Banshi Prasad, ajay Kumar Jaiswal, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Binod Kumar Jaiswal, Chandra banshi Prasad, Jawaharlal Gupta, Lalit Kumar Gupta and Deepak Kumar Gupta and they were occupying the said land through their Chowkidar-cum-Caretaker i. e. petitioner No. 1, who used to reside in the structure, standing on the case property, with his family members. ( 5 ) THE original owner of the case property Narasingha Prasad died on 03. 8. 1980 leaving behind his wife and the wife of predeceased son Smt. Panchoobala Dasi. All the properties of Narasingha Prasad Das was recorded in the name of Panchoobala Dasi in the R. S. record of rights. Subsequently, it transpired that Narasingha Prasad Das left a will bequeathing all his properties in favour of one Ramendra Narayan Das, son of Satya Gopal Das who was made the executor of the will. After a long drawn litigation, said will was probated in the year 1985. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the land in question was not a part of the property that was mentioned in the said will. As such, as the land in question was already settled in favour of Munilal Shaw by Narasingha Prasad Das in the year 1926, so he became a direct tenant under the State of West Bengal in the year 1955 by operation of law. ( 7 ) SAID Ramendra Narayan Das sold many lands of Narasingha Prasad das on the basis of the said will to different persons and also to many land grabbers at a very low price. Those alleged sales were all fictitious and sham transactions. The opposite party No. 1 allegedly purchased the case land from ramendra Narayan Das. The petitioners claimed that the said transaction was sham and speculative. Since his so-called purchase of the case land on 28. 6. 2002, the opposite party No. 1 was trying to get the land settled in his own name on the allegation that the land was wrongly recorded in the name of Late Munilal Shaw. ( 8 ) THE opposite party No. 1 was very much aware that the heirs of Munilal shaw were in possession and occupation of the case land. But, an enquiry was started by the B. L. and L. R. O. upon the petition of the opposite party No. 1 for inclusion of his name in the record of rights so far as case land is concerned. In the said proceeding the heirs of Munilal Shaw appeared and submitted their reply stating the entire facts. But, an enquiry was started by the B. L. and L. R. O. upon the petition of the opposite party No. 1 for inclusion of his name in the record of rights so far as case land is concerned. In the said proceeding the heirs of Munilal Shaw appeared and submitted their reply stating the entire facts. ( 9 ) SUPPRESSING all these facts regarding the ownership of the case land in the name of the heirs of Late Munilal Shaw, the opposite party No. 1 filed an application before the learned Executive Magistrate, siliguri and only made the caretaker and his minor sons as parties to the said proceeding. On the strength of the order of the learned Executive magistrate, passed in a proceeding started under Section 144 Cr. P. C. police created pressure on the petitioners. In the said proceeding, the opposite party no. 1 claimed himself to be the owner of the case land along with brick built boundary wall. It has been falsely alleged in the said petition that the petitioners are the residence of Khalpara in the town of siliguri and they had no right, title and interest over the said land and they were allegedly trying to take possession of the case land forcibly. As, according to the opposite party No. 1, there was apprehension of breach of peace, to be caused by the petitioners, so a prayer was made before the learned Executive magistrate in the said proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. that they should be restrained by passing appropriate order. Learned Executive Magistrate directed the police to make an enquiry and to submit a report before him and also directed the police to keep strict vigil in and around the case land so that no untoward incident took place. However, while passing such direction, the learned Magistrate did not draw up the proceeding on that day. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, police came to the premises of the petitioners and threatened to dispossess and also took the petitioner No. 1 to the P. S. for questioning. However, the petitioners claimed that they continued to be in possession and occupation of the case land and they informed the heirs of Munilal Shaw about the incident. ( 11 ) ON 28. 10. However, the petitioners claimed that they continued to be in possession and occupation of the case land and they informed the heirs of Munilal Shaw about the incident. ( 11 ) ON 28. 10. 2004 the learned Magistrate, at the instance of the opposite party No. 1, put up the said record and passed certain direction upon the police authority. On 05. 11. 2004 the record was put up before the learned Magistrate, as the police submitted the report, although, the next date was fixed on 08. 11. 2004. Learned Magistrate purportedly perused the police report and was of the opinion that there was possibility of breach of peace in the locale and, as such, he drew up a proceeding under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. ; and the petitioners were restrained from going into the case land and were directed not to disturb the alleged possession of the opposite party No. 1. At the same time, the Inspector-in-Charge, Siliguri PS. was directed to keep a close watch in and around the land in question so that no untoward incident occurred and no breach of peace took place. ( 12 ) ON 6. 11. 2004, one S. I. of police went to the premises of the petitioners with the copy of the order of the Court and ransacked the petitioners' structure, where they used to live and took away their money and cattle and deposited the cows of the petitioners in a nearby 'goshala'. The heirs of Munilal Shaw were informed about the incident and when they came to the spot they were beaten up by the police personnel and as a result of that they suffered injury. Some of them were arrested and later released on bail. A police case was falsely started against the heirs of Munilal Shaw and against the petitioners on the basis of a suo-moto complaint lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police. ( 13 ) SAID police officials actually dispossessed the petitioners and, in turn, also the actual land owners from the case property. This dispossession of the petitioners from the case property was done illegally by the police officials on the basis of an illegal order of the learned Magistrate. According to the petitioners, the police report clearly reveals that the, petitioners were in possession of the case property. This dispossession of the petitioners from the case property was done illegally by the police officials on the basis of an illegal order of the learned Magistrate. According to the petitioners, the police report clearly reveals that the, petitioners were in possession of the case property. But, inspite of that the learned Magistrate was pleased to pass such an order in a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. As the said order is thoroughly illegal, so the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the said order and as they were dispossessed illegally on the strength of such illegal order, so they have prayed for restoration of their possession in respect of the case property. ( 14 ) THE opposite party No. 1 contested the revisional application. According to the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in passing the order in question, as there was apprehension of breach of peace in the locality. In addition to that, learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1, further argued that since the period of 60 days has already been over, so there is absolutely no necessity for this Court to pass any order in this respect as the proceeding before the learned Magistrate should be treated to have been dropped automaticatly. Learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 1, thus, has prayed for dismissal of the revisional application. ( 15 ) I have heard the respective submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. It appears from the revisional application that the property in question originally belonged to the zamindar of Katwa. The petitioners have claimed that they were in possession of the case property, as caretakers under the persons who obtained settlement from the said zamindar. On the other hand, it is the case of the opposite party no. 1 that he and others got the case property by way of transfer which was executed by their vendors after they acquired title in respect of the property on the basis of a Will which was duly probated. So, it appears that, there is claim and counter-claim in respect of the ownership of the case property. Learned advocate for the petitioners, at the time of argument, pointed out to several documents in support of the claim of the petitioners. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the opposite party no. So, it appears that, there is claim and counter-claim in respect of the ownership of the case property. Learned advocate for the petitioners, at the time of argument, pointed out to several documents in support of the claim of the petitioners. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 1 argued that over the case property a long standing dispute is going on between the parties and this Court cannot come to a conclusion regarding the actual ownership in respect of the property in question. ( 16 ) BE that as it may, so far as the present hearing is concerned, we are not to consider and decide the question of title of the parties. What is material for the purpose of this hearing, is, who was in possession of the case property and whether the learned Magistrate was justified in passing an order under section 144 Cr. P. C. in favour of the opposite party No. 1. ( 17 ) LEARNED Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 at the very outset submitted that since the date of the passing of the impugned order, sixty days have already passed and as such, the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. must be deemed to have been dropped by operation of law. In addition to that, the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 further pointed out that the petitioners, by filing this revisional application, have practically prayed for quashing of the said proceeding. According to him, he has got no objection if the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. which is pending before the learned executive Magistrate, Siliguri is quashed on the prayer of the opposite party No. 1. ( 18 ) AS against this, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that so far as the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. is concerned, it is palpably clear that the learned Magistrate passed an illegal order and taking advantage of that order, the opposite party No. 1, with the help of police personnel, managed to dispossess the petitioners from the case property. As such, he submits that not only the impugned order of the learned magistrate and the proceeding in question filed under Section 144 Cr. P. C. should be quashed but at the same time steps should be taken for restoration of the possession of the petitioners. As such, he submits that not only the impugned order of the learned magistrate and the proceeding in question filed under Section 144 Cr. P. C. should be quashed but at the same time steps should be taken for restoration of the possession of the petitioners. He further pointed out that since a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed, it is the duty of the Court to look into the entire petition and not to confine its attention only to the prayer portion. Simply because a prayer for quashing of the proceeding has been made in the revisional application, the Court is not duty bound to discharge its obligation by quashing the said proceeding. According to him, if the proceeding is simply quashed, the purpose of the opposite party No. 1 will be served, as he has dispossessed the petitioners from the case property illegally with the aid and assistance of the police personnel. As such, the learned Advocate submitted that it is a fit case where not only the proceeding should be quashed but also steps should be taken for restoration of the possession of the petitioners, as it stood at the time of passing of the illegal order. In this respect, he has drawn my attention to the Paragraph-28 of the revisional application wherein such prayer for restoration of possession has been made. ( 19 ) AS such, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, argued that in addition to the quashing of the proceeding, an order should be passed by this court for restoration of the possession of the petitioners, in exercise of its inherent power as provided under Section 482 Cr. P. C. In this respect, he has cited decisions reported in AIR 1982 SC 2198 (Gulam Abbas v. State of U. P.), air 1996 SC 1517 (Prasan Kumar Roy Karmakar), 1989 Crl. L J 1651 (Dayamay Bhattacharya v. Surya Kanta Sur), AIR 1952 Patna 316 (Indrasan rai v. Enayat Khan), AIR (39) 1952 Calcutta 201 (Jitendra Nath Sarcar v. Biswanath Bagchi), AIR 1928 Allahabad 14 (Hafiz) Hafizuddin v. C. Laborde), air (35) 1948 Calcutta 192 (Brindaban Shaw v. Nrendra Nath Sarkar) AIR (38)1951 Punjab 109 (Radha Kishen v. Indra Prakash), and 1997 C Cr. L R (Cal) 216 (Mohammed Nasim v. Salman Bibi ). L R (Cal) 216 (Mohammed Nasim v. Salman Bibi ). ( 20 ) IN order to consider the claims of the respective parties, so far as the present hearing is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to look into the Orders that were passed by the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 144 cr. P. C. It appears from the order dated 28. 10. 2004 that the learned Magistrate asked the I. C. Siliguri P. S. to submit a report in respect of the allegations that were made in the petition by the opposite party No. 1. Next date was fixed on 25. 11. 2004. It further appears that on 29. 10. 2004 on the basis of a put up petition filed by the present opposite party No. 1, the O/c, Siliguri P. S. was again directed to submit his report by 08. 11. 2004. Again, it appears from the order dated 05. 11. 2004 that record was put up on that date as prayed by the present opposite party No. 1 and on that date, on perusal of the police report, the learned magistrate was pleased to draw up a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. and restrained the opposite parties i. e. the present petitioners, from entering into the case land of the petitioners/present opposite party No. 1 and also not to disturb the possession of the present opposite party No. 1. In addition to that, the learned Magistrate directed the police authority to keep close watch over the matter so that no untoward incident could happen. This order, as passed by the learned Magistrate appears to me to be thoroughly illegal and improper. First of all on 28. 10. 2004 he passed certain direction upon the I. C. , Siliguri P. S. while calling for a report. Learned Magistrate was totally wrong in passing such type of direction without drawing up a proceeding. There is no doubt that on that date no proceeding was drawn up by the learned Magistrate and inspite of that, he on that date and on subsequent date, passed certain directions, which are not permissible in law. Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that it was a clear civil dispute in between the parties and there is every possibility that taking advantage of any order passed in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that it was a clear civil dispute in between the parties and there is every possibility that taking advantage of any order passed in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. an unscrupulous person, with the aid and assistance of police, could cause damage to any person, who may be in actual possession of the case property. Even if we consider the order dated 05. 11. 2004 when the learned Magistrate drew up the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. , then also it will appear that the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in drawing up the said proceeding. I have pointed out that it was a clear civil dispute between the parties and by passing an order, even if it is interim in nature, learned Magistrate has caused immense injury to the other side. Before passing such order, it would have been better for the learned Magistrate to hear the opposite parties. It is the settled principle of law that when there is a civil dispute going on in between the parties, then such type of order should not be passed by a Magistrate in exercise of the provisions laid down under section 144 Cr. P. C. It is entirely the domain of the Civil Court and that Court is only competent to decide the dispute in between the parties. As such, there cannot be any doubt that the order, as passed by the learned Magistrate, is thoroughly illegal and without jurisdiction and he was not at all justified in drawing up the proceeding and to pass the order in question. Under such circumstances, i have got no hesitation to hold that the criminal proceeding, as pending before the learned Executive Magistrate, siliguri is liable to be quashed and the impugned order should also be set aside. ( 21 ) BUT, the learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that simply by quashing the proceeding the problem cannot be solved. According to him, as the petitioners were in actual possession over the case property and as they were dispossessed from the said property by virtue of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under section 144 Cr. According to him, as the petitioners were in actual possession over the case property and as they were dispossessed from the said property by virtue of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. G. , so the proceeding should be declared to be illegal and it is the duty of the Court to restore the possession of the petitioners, which was there at the time of passing of the impugned order by the learned Magistrate. In this respect, he cited the decisions, as quoted above. I have perused those decisions. In those decisions, it has clearly been laid down that when a dispute is purely civil in nature, then in order to solve the dispute amongst the parties, civil Court only has got the proper jurisdiction. The matter cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 144 cr. P. C. It has further been decided in those decisions that if a person is illegally dispossessed from a property, with the aid of an illegal order of the Court, then in that event, when the said order is declared to be illegal, it is the duty of the court to see that the possession of the person concerned, should be restored, as it was there before passing of the said illegal order. ( 22 ) IN the light of those decisions, let us now to consider the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners. I have already pointed out that the petitioners have claimed that they were in possession of the case property prior to the passing of the illegal order of the learned Magistrate and by virtue of the said order they were dispossessed by the opposite party No. 1. In support of their possession and title, the petitioners have annexed several documents in this revisional application. It appears prima facie, from those documents that the petitioner No. 1 was allegedly in possession of the case property as a caretaker on behalf of actual owners. I have already pointed out that there is a dispute going on the respect of the ownership of the property in question. It appears prima facie, from those documents that the petitioner No. 1 was allegedly in possession of the case property as a caretaker on behalf of actual owners. I have already pointed out that there is a dispute going on the respect of the ownership of the property in question. One group is claiming that the ownership devolved upon them by way of settlement from the zamindar and by virtue of operation of law, while the other group is claiming that on the strength of a Will, which was duly probated, they acquired title in respect of the case property. In view of these divergent claim of the parties, the genuineness of the claim regarding ownership of the property, cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. nor for this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is absolutely necessary that the parties should refer the dispute to the Civil Court for appropriate determination, regarding the title of the case property. However, so far as present case is concerned, we are to see as to whether the petitioners were in possession in the case property at the time of passing of the impugned order by the learned Magistrate and whether they were dispossessed illegally by the opposite party No. 1 or not. ( 23 ) IN order to come to a decision in this respect, it requires appropriate consideration of evidence of the parties. Simply on the basis of the papers, as annexed by the petitioners with the revisional application, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the petitioners were actually in possession of the case property when the impugned order of the learned Magistrate was passed. In the decision reported in AIR 1952 Patna 316 (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that "the High Court, acting under Section 561a, possesses the power to order restoration of the property. This power must, however, be exercised in a case where there is no doubt left in the mind of the Court upon the materials placed before it about the right of the party seeking restitution. If this power is exercised in a doubtful case, instead of doing justice between the parties the court will be acting unjustly with one of the parties if ultimately it is found by a competent Court of law that the property did belong to that party. If this power is exercised in a doubtful case, instead of doing justice between the parties the court will be acting unjustly with one of the parties if ultimately it is found by a competent Court of law that the property did belong to that party. In a straight case where there are no conflicting claims of the possession and ownership of the property, the High Court would be acting within its inherent power to restore the property, if that has been removed from the possession of the owner under illegal and wrong order of the Court. " ( 24 ) IN the concluding portion of the said decision, Das, J. observed that"i would have no hesitation in ordering restitution of the truck in this case, but for my considered opinion that this is really a case of disputed title and possession and the parties must go the Civil Court for a determination of question of title," the Court may have the jurisdiction to pass such order as would prevent abuse of any process of the Court or secure the ends of Justice. " ( 25 ) SO far as present case is concerned, I have already pointed out that there is room for doubt regarding the actual claim of possession of the petitioners, particularly when the claim of the petitioners has not been supported in the police report. At the same time, it cannot also be said definitely that the opposite party No. 1 was in possession of the case property at the time when the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate. So, this Court cannot come to a definite conclusion regarding the claim of possession, made by the parties. ( 26 ) UNDER such circumstances, in view of the decision as cited above, i am of opinion that it will not be fit and proper for this Court to pass a direction for restoration of the alleged possession of the petitioners, so far as case property is concerned. To my mind, it is absolutely necessary for the parties to settle their dispute in an appropriate Civil Court for determination of their title and possession in respect of the said case property. Since I have already pointed out that the proceeding as started by the learned Magistrate under Section 144 cr. To my mind, it is absolutely necessary for the parties to settle their dispute in an appropriate Civil Court for determination of their title and possession in respect of the said case property. Since I have already pointed out that the proceeding as started by the learned Magistrate under Section 144 cr. P. C. is without jurisdiction and as such same cannot subsist, the impugned order must be said to be without jurisdiction. As such, I think that it will be better to observe that the matter would be decided by an appropriate Civil Court and the possession, which might have been obtained on the basis of the improper and illegal order of the learned Executive magistrate, should not be given any weight, if on evidence it could be established that on the strength of the said order, one of the parties was dispossessed from the case property. ( 27 ) WITH these observations, the revisional application is disposed of on contest. The proceeding bearing Petition Case No. 94 of 2004 of the Court of learned Executive Magistrate, Siliguri is quashed and the order dated 05. 11. 2004 is set aside.