JUDGMENT:- Prasenjit Mandal, J.: This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is at the instance of opposite parties of a proceeding under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, and is directed against the order dated 27.02.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in Criminal Revision No.4 of 2007 thereby rejecting the revisional application filed by the petitioners. The fact of the case in short is that on the basis of a mass petition filed by some persons of the locality alleging that the petitioners are illegally occupying a portion of the land belonging to the municipality, the executive magistrate called for a report from the B.L. & L.R.O. regarding the status of the land. The magistrate also issued a notice upon the opposite parties to file a written objection as to why the proceeding under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. should not be drawn up against them. Thereafter the magistrate directed the B.L. & L.R.O. to demarcate the entire land in case in presence of a competent officer after issuing notice to all the concerned so as to ascertain whether the actual enclosure of the land measuing .06 acres comprised within the plot no.1496 of Mouza Kharia, J.L. No.7 and Sheet No.33. The B.L. & L.R.O. submitted his report on 10.01.2007 stating that it was not possible to carry out the order due to the resistance of the opposite parties, and the B.L. & L.R.O. prayed for deployment of female police force to demarcate the land. The Magistrate passed orders dated 22.12.2006 and 12.01.2007 thereby directing demarcation with the police help. Adequate police force was deployed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the magistrate, the petitioners preferred a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge observed that there was nothing to interfere with the order of the magistrate dated 12.01.2007. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the magistrate was justified in directing the I.C., Kotwali P.S. to provide all sorts of help to the B.L. & L.R.O. at the time of demarcation of the land. So, finding no merit in the revisional application, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisional application by the impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the magistrate was justified in directing the I.C., Kotwali P.S. to provide all sorts of help to the B.L. & L.R.O. at the time of demarcation of the land. So, finding no merit in the revisional application, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisional application by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come up before this Court with this revisional application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the said proceedings under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the disputed land is all along possessed by the petitioners since the time of their grandfather without any interference from any corner whatsoever. The name of the grandfather of the petitioners, namely, Ram Chandra Das, was duly recorded in the R.S. Khatian No.5919/1 in respect of the R.S. Plot No.1494 of Sheet No.33 under Mouza – Kharia. The cousin brother-in-law of the petitioners, namely, Bijoy Ratan Das, purchased 34 decimals of land in 1951 from the self same plot and took delivery of possession and the said plot of land was recorded as 1495 in the R.S. record of rights. The mother of the petitioners purchased the said 34 decimals of land from Bijoy Ratan Das in 1976 and then she died in 2007 leaving the petitioners and others as heirs. The present petitioners are occupying and possessing the said plots of land along with other legal heirs. Then, in July, 2006, they received a notice from the Jalpaiguri Municipality that they were occupying 6 decimals of land unauthorisedly. This is totally vague and not supported by any document. So the actions taken by the executive magistrate is not, at all, true. The B.L. & L.R.O. submitted a reported to the executive magistrate in the proceedings under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, but the report was not clear and so the order of demarcation was passed. This cannot be supported. He also contended that since the predecessors have been possessing land in case all along since 1950, question of demarcation did not arise. So the proceedings under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. should be dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge should also be dismissed. On the other hand, Mr. This cannot be supported. He also contended that since the predecessors have been possessing land in case all along since 1950, question of demarcation did not arise. So the proceedings under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. should be dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge should also be dismissed. On the other hand, Mr. Roy submits that this is the second revisional application by the same persons and such application is not maintainable in law. Moreover, the steps taken by the executive magistrate cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and so there is nothing to interfere with the impugned orders. After hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the executive magistrate started a proceeding under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. to determine whether 6 decimals of land in question belonged to the municipality or not. For that reason, he called for a report from the B.L. & L.R.O. Subsequently the B.L. & L.R.O. submitted a report stating that it could not be determined unless survey is made. Thereafter, the executive magistrate passed an order for demarcation in presence of a competent officer, after issuance of notice upon all the interested persons. At that time, the petitioners did not allow demarcation. On the basis of the report of the B.L. & L.R.O., the executive magistrate asked the local I.C. to provide for police protection for the purpose of demarcation of the land in case. Therefore, on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the executive magistrate is proceeding with the matter in accordance with law and that there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order. Therefore, I do not find any justified ground in the matter of quashing the proceeding under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of police help. The petitioners moved the revisional Court by filing an appropriate application and that application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. was duly disposed of on merits by the learned Sessions Judge on 27.02.2007 by the impugned order. So the revisional application filed by the petitioners has been rightly dismissed on merits. Again, according Section 399(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, another revisional application by the petitioners before the Hon’ble High Court is not maintainable. For that reason, this application is not also maintainable at all. So the revisional application filed by the petitioners has been rightly dismissed on merits. Again, according Section 399(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, another revisional application by the petitioners before the Hon’ble High Court is not maintainable. For that reason, this application is not also maintainable at all. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.