A. P. SAHI, J. These two writ petitions arise out of a common judgment on two separate applications filed by the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey and the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava for release of a tractor which is subject matter of dispute between the parties. 2. The facts as detailed in both the petitions, are that the tractor bearing Registration Number UP-66-C-9369 along with a trolley was purchased by one Hira Lal on 28. 8. 2003. The said Hira Lal died leaving behind his widow Smt. Durgawati and his son as legal heirs and representatives. It is alleged that the said tractor was in service at the petitioners brick kiln and was being used for loading, unloading and transportation of bricks. Mr. Ram Sajiwan Pandey, the father of the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey claims to have purchased the said tractor from the heirs of Hira Lal whereas respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava claims that he has purchased it from the heirs of late Hira Lal. It is contended that there were, documents in their favour indicating certification of ownership of the said tractor. 3. The dispute arose when the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey informed the police on 26. 4. 2006 that the Tractor which was in the ownership of his father was stolen by the respondent No. 3 and his brother Rajesh and, therefore action should be taken against them. The respondent N -. o moved an application on 8. 5. 2006 before the learned Magistrate stating that the tractor had been lifted by the police from his door on 6. 5. 2006 and he also produced certain documents of registration alleging that the said tractor had been sold in his favour by the heirs of Hira Lal including his widow Smt. Durgawati Devi. This application was allowed by the Magistrate after calling for a report from the police. The police had submitted a report on 12. 5. 2006 indicating that the tractor had been recovered in an abandoned state. On the strength of the said police report, on the same day the Magistrate passed an order for release of the tractor in favour of Suresh Kumar Srivastava. The police had submitted a report on 12. 5. 2006 indicating that the tractor had been recovered in an abandoned state. On the strength of the said police report, on the same day the Magistrate passed an order for release of the tractor in favour of Suresh Kumar Srivastava. Since (he tractor was not released by the police, immediately three days thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey for release of the said tractor in his favour and praying for recall of the order dated 12. 5. 2006 made in favour of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey clearly alleged that the said tractor has been purchased by his father and he became owner of the same after his death. The papers submitted by the respondent No. 3 were all fictitious and hence the order dated 12. 5. 2006 deserves to be recalled. On the same date, the respondent No. 3 moved an application stating that the police inspite of the release order in his favour had not handed over the tractor and, therefore, appropriate orders should be passed thereon. 4. Faced with this counter claim the Magistrate vide order dated 15. 5. 2006 called for a report from the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Gyanpur calling for the details of the actual status of registration of the said tractor and about the issuance of certificate as claimed by either of the parties. This document is Annexure 9 to W. P. No. 9499 of 2007. A perusal of the same indicates that specific details were wanted in respect of the documents produced by either side. 5. Before the said queries were answered by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, a report was submitted to the Dy. S. P. , Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Kotwali, Gyanpur which is Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The said report clearly recites that the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava had applied for the transfer of ownership in his favour and that he had produced incorrect documents as a result whereof a duplicate registration certificate was issued to him. This report had been submitted in response to the complaint made by the petitioner on 26. 4. 2006 as indicated here in above. This report had been submitted in response to the complaint made by the petitioner on 26. 4. 2006 as indicated here in above. The Assistant Regional Transports Officer has also recommended that appropriate action should be taken against the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava and one Chandra Bali Maurya who had manipulated the issuance of the duplicate registration certificate on the basis of the incorrect documents. Having received these reports, the Dy. S. P. /circle Officer directed the Station House Officer, Gyanpur to lodge an F. I. R. against Chandra Bali Maurya and Suresh Kumar Srivastava and proceed against them. It is stated that the said proceedings are still pending against the respondent No. 3 and Chandra Bali Maurya. 6. Thereafter a detailed report was submitted by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in response to his queries dated 15. 5. 2006. This report is dated 6. 6. 2006 and is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said report indicates that Hira Lal the original owner died on 28. 8. 2003 and from a perusal of the records of the file pertaining to the said vehicle as also the register regarding registration, it appears that the registration which was recorded on 15/16. 10. 2003 appears to have been got done irregularly. In view of this the registration in favour of Ram Sajiwan Pandey father of the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey is invalid and for the same reason the registration obtained by the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava on 18. 2. 2006 was also invalid. It further recites that this was done on account of the mistake of the concerned clerk and, therefore, both the registration obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava deserve to be cancelled. This was followed by another police report dated 1. 7. 2006 which goes on to narrate different story that the file pertaining to the registration in favour of the father of the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey is not available in the office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer and that there appears to be a file transacted in favour of Suresh Kumar Srivastava at the behest of widow of Hira Lal Smt. Durgawati. The said report also records that a receipt was issued in favour of Ram Sajiwan Pandey for deposit of tax Rs. The said report also records that a receipt was issued in favour of Ram Sajiwan Pandey for deposit of tax Rs. 150/-Certain statements of the office of Regional Transport Officer were also recorded which further added to the confusion with regard to the transfer of ownership. 7. Faced with the aforesaid documents, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that none of the registration certificates produced by either of the side, indicate the existence of the name of Hira Lal and, therefore, relying on the reports aforesaid, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that none of the parties appear to be the real registered owners of the tractor and hence they should approach the Civil Court for a declaration of their ownership. 8. It is also to be noted that an application under section 340 Cr. P. C. had also been filed before the Magistrate in view of the report of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer given earlier in respect of manipulation of documents which application was dropped on the ground that a criminal case being case crime No. 340 of 2006 had already been registered against the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava in this regard, therefore, it would not be appropriate to proceed any further. 9. Revisions were preferred by both the parties assailing the order of the learned C. J. M. dated 14. 7. 2006. Both the revisions have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 8. 3. 2007 against which Anil Kumar Pandey has filed Writ Petition No. 9499 of 2007 and respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava has filed Writ Petition No. 7587 of 2007. 10. I have perused the memo of revision filed by both the parties and it appears that the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey claims that the tractor was acquired by his father Ram Sajiwan Pandey for which certain amount of loan was got advanced by his father from the Allahabad Bank, whereas Suresh Kumar Srivastava claims that he had paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash to the heirs of Late Hira Lal for acquiring the said tractor. The dispute, therefore, in essence is, who actually acquired the tractor from the heirs of late Hira Lal. There is one peculiar thing which deserves to be noticed and that is the report submitted by the Assistant Regional Transports Officer dated 6. 6. 2006. 1,50,000/- in cash to the heirs of Late Hira Lal for acquiring the said tractor. The dispute, therefore, in essence is, who actually acquired the tractor from the heirs of late Hira Lal. There is one peculiar thing which deserves to be noticed and that is the report submitted by the Assistant Regional Transports Officer dated 6. 6. 2006. The same categorically records that the report was being submitted after perusing the entire file and verifying and comparing it with the registration register in respect of the documents filed by the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey. Not only this, it was on a comparison of both the claims that a report was submitted that there is a clerical error which mistake was admitted by the concerned clerk and which establishes that the registration is of No. UP-66-C-9369 and not UP-66-9369. It has further been indicated that both registration numbers are the same which on account of the clerical error was wrongly indicated even though the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle is the same. The aforesaid facts, therefore, leave no room for doubt that as on the date of the submission of the said report, the file pertaining to the alleged claim of transfer was available and it is on that basis it was reported that the registration obtained by the petitioners father on 15. 10. 2003 was incorrect. In this view of the matter the consequent report of the police that, there was no file available ought to have been examined in depth in order to arrive at a conclusion which does not appear to have been done by the Court below. Apart from this, the Courts below have further not proceeded to examine the evidence which could have indicated prima facie the passing off of the ownership of the tractor from the heirs of late Hira Lal. It appears that the real dispute could have been better appreciated, had the heirs of Hira Lal been also summoned in order to give their versions and also to verify as to whether the amount as claimed by the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey through a bank loan had passed on to the heirs of Hira Lal or not. It appears that the real dispute could have been better appreciated, had the heirs of Hira Lal been also summoned in order to give their versions and also to verify as to whether the amount as claimed by the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey through a bank loan had passed on to the heirs of Hira Lal or not. This was necessary as it was alleged by the petitioner Uhat Rajendra Kumar Srivastava the brother of the respondent No. 3, was driving the vehicle and it is with his collusion that the vehicle was made a subject matter of dispute by illegally removing it away which amounted to a theft and with regard to which a criminal case has already been launched and is pending. 11. The aforesaid deficiency, therefore, in my opinion calls for a re-examination of the matter in the light of the observations made here-in-above and only then a opinion could have been expressed. 12. Even otherwise the Apex Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC)= 2003 (2) AIC 964 (SC ). has issued guidelines arising out of matters of release of vehicles which has also not been taken into consideration. 13. In case the tractor is allowed to rust in the police station, the same will be of no benefit to either of the parties and it would be an ultimate loss without any utility of the said vehicle either in the impending cases or for any other purpose. 14. Accordingly, the orders dated 14. 7. 2006 and 8. 3. 2007 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi for a decision afresh in the light of the observations made here-in-above as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months of the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the Court below. Both the writ petitions are disposed off with the aforesaid Observations. No orders as to costs. Petitions Disposed Of. .