Judgment 1. Heard counsel tor the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 26.8.2004 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 883 of 2000 by Addl. Sessions Judge, VIII, Patna by which he has set aside the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Patna in Case No. 1310(M)/ 79 in a proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. by which he has declared the possession of the opposite party no. 2 with respect to the disputed land. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction for the reasons that the revisional court while setting aside the order finding that there is illegality in the impugned order should not have declared the possession of any of the parties. The revisional court has jurisdiction to set aside the order, so far the declaration part is concerned and for that the matter should have been remanded to the Executive Magistrate. In this respect the order impugned is bad. 4. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the Executive Magistrate has declared the possession ignoring some material evidence as such the revisional court has interfered with the matter. 5. I find that there is jurisdictional error in the order passed by the revisional court as the matter should have been remanded to the Executive Magistrate for declaring the possession. Instead the revisional court itself has declared the possession. In these circumstances, the order passed in Cr. Rev. No. 883 of 2000 is quashed and this case is remanded to the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Patna for reconsideration, taking into consideration the materials on record of Case No. 1310(M) of 1979 and thereby declaring the possessions of the parties in accordance with law, within three months from the date of the receipt/communication of this order.