JUDGMENT Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. 1. Petitioner/1st Party has challenged the order dated 05.10.2002/07.10.2002 passed by Sri. A. Ram, Executive Magistrate, Dumrao in Case No. 267(M)/2000, Trial No. 127/2002(Musafir Kuar v. Tileshwar Kuar) under Section 145 Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder the land under dispute has been declared to be under possession of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 7. 2. Unfortunately, the order by which a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was drawn, is not available on the L.C. record and in likewise manner there is also absence of notices issued in terms of Section 145 (1) of the Cr.P.C. After going through the record, Ext-A has been traced out which is a petition filed on behalf of petitioner/1st Party for initiation of proceeding wherefrom details of the disputed land has been gathered to be Khata No. 297/1 Khesra No. 1856/1, 2 Area 12 Acre 10 Decimal bounded by North- Bhagarchaki, South-Dharwawati Nadi, East-Ramji Kuar & Ors, West-Ganga Singh & Ors lying at village-Sheopur Diyara, Naubaraha. 3. From Annexure-A as well as from written statement filed on behalf of petitioner/1st Party, it is evident that petitioner/1st Party had claimed the land to be under his possession on the basis of having it an ancestral property. It has also been pleaded that the same is recorded in the name of father of Musafir Kuar as well as in the name of uncle of Sheo Mangal Kuar in Khatian. Because of the fact that the Opposite Parties are putting hindrances in the peaceful possession of the 1st Party over the land causing apprehension of breach of peace on account of which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated at an earlier occasion which was dropped. Then thereafter, the detail of other litigation has been disclosed. The learned SDM asked for a report from Circle Officer, Brahmpur which was submitted vide letter no. 795 dated 23.12.2000 and certainly the aforesaid report might have been the basis of initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. As stated above, the aforesaid order is not available on the record, hence, details thereof, is not furthermore available relating to the same. 4. Just after initiation of the proceeding another petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner/1st Party for attaching the property whereupon police report was called for and after receiving the same vide order dated 06.07.2000 the land was attached. 5. 4. Just after initiation of the proceeding another petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner/1st Party for attaching the property whereupon police report was called for and after receiving the same vide order dated 06.07.2000 the land was attached. 5. The O.P. No.1 to 6 had filed written statement divulging the fact that a Rent Suit No. 566 of 1910 was initiated against the aforesaid land which was acquired by their ancestor in terms of Section 170 of the B.T. Act. Then it has been submitted that after aforesaid event, the status of the party figured in following manner:- Khata No. Khesra No. Area Status of parties 297/1 1856 7 Bighas Bhikari Kuar = = = = 6 Bighas Most. Paramjit Kuar = = = = 4 Bighas Bihari Kuar = = = = 3 Bighas Ramsundar Kuar 297 1840 9 Bighas 2 Katthas Surajnath Kuar F/O 1st Pary. = = 1804 3 Bighas 10 Katthas Bhikari Kuar = = = = 1 Bigha 10 Katthas Ramsundar Kuar = = = = 2 Bighas Bihari Kuar = = = = 3 Bighas Rambriksh Kuar 6. Then it has been pleaded that Rajeshwari Singh had launched one Certificate Case No. 145 of 1919 against Surajnath Kuar and got an ex parte order, as a result of which Bhikari Kuar, forefather of 2nd Pary had filed a Title Suit No. 1943/1922 against Rajeshwari Singh and Surajnath Kuar which was decided in favour of Bhikari Kuar. Surajnath Kuar had challenged the judgment and decree under Title Appeal No. 229 of 1923 which was dismissed. It has also been submitted that Dumrao Estate had filed a Rent Suit bearing No. 1188/1926 relating to an area of 12 Acre 10 decimals against Surajnath Kuar as well as Bhikari Kuar whereunder Surajnath Kuar had clearly stated that he had got no concerned with the land and on account thereof, the due amount was paid by the ancestor of the 2nd Party. It has also been stated that Rajeshwari Singh who was inter mediary had filed Title Suit No. 121 of 1932 against the ancestor of 2nd Party which was decided against Rajeshwari Singh. The 2nd Party is coming over the land through law of inheritance, their names have been recorded during Revisional survey. The Khatian has been recorded in their name. They are paying rent and are in possession thereof. The 2nd Party is coming over the land through law of inheritance, their names have been recorded during Revisional survey. The Khatian has been recorded in their name. They are paying rent and are in possession thereof. The 1st Party had challenged the mutation having in favour of 2nd Party before the learned DCLR which was allowed by the same but in appeal, the learned Collector had set aside the same. It has also been submitted that during course of Revisional survey operation the members of the 1st Party have lost the game at different level. 7. During course of trial both the parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence and after scrutinizing the same, the learned trial court had declared the land under dispute to be in possession of 2nd party, hence this revision. 8. Altogether 9 witnesses have been examined on behalf of petitioner/1st Party while 13 documents have been exhibited. Those are rent receipts, C.S. Khatian, copy of Jamabandi Register to suggest that entry was made in accordance with finding of Rent Suit No. 1809/1938, order passed in Mutation Appeal No. 5/99, the order-sheet of the Pleader Commissioner. In likewise manner, the Opposite Party No.1 to 6/2nd Party had examined 10 witnesses as well as had exhibited documents having under seriatim B2-B/69 including rent receipt, as well as different documents. 9. The proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. commands and permits only with regard to declaration relating to possession over disputed land in favour of contesting party. This Section does not command or speak relating to right of the parties. Excluding the evidence of other witnesses, I would like to see the evidence of parties itself. PW-2 is Sheo Mangal Kuar, the petitioner/first party. During his examination-in-chief, he had stated that disputed land is 12 Acre 10 Decimal of plot No. 1856 corresponding to Khata No. 297/1 lying at village-Sheopur Diar having boundary, south-Dharamavati River, North-Bhagar Chakki, East- Ramji Kuar & Ors, West-Ganga Singh & Ors. This area is under one Chunk. The dispute arose in the month of May, 2000 and for that a proceeding under Section 107, 144 Cr.P.C. was drawn up. Khatian is recorded in the name of Surajnath Kuar. Musafir Kuar is son of Surajnath Kuar. The members of 2nd Party do not belong to his family. This area is under one Chunk. The dispute arose in the month of May, 2000 and for that a proceeding under Section 107, 144 Cr.P.C. was drawn up. Khatian is recorded in the name of Surajnath Kuar. Musafir Kuar is son of Surajnath Kuar. The members of 2nd Party do not belong to his family. The statement of 2nd Party that they also belong to the same family is incorrect. The Mutation Appeal was decided in his favour by the DCLR against which appeal was preferred before the Collector which was remanded to the C.O., Brahampur for passing proper order. He had further claimed the land to be his Khatiani land over which his possession is coming since 1882. He had also instituted a case bearing Brahampur P.S. Case No. 35/2000 against the members of the 2nd Party for looting crop. Again Brahampur P.S. Case No. 67/2000 was instituted for assault. Return of land was filed in the name of Surajnath Kuar. During course of launching of Rent Suit by Dumrao Maharaj, his ancestor had paid the rent. During cross-examination, he had stated that his uncle Surajnath Kuar was recorded tenant. He had further admitted that in Rent Suit No. 566/1910 which was filed against Surajnath Kuar, they were not under Raiyat. He had no knowledge that Bhikari Kuar, the forefather of 2nd Party had filed petition in terms of Section 170 of B.T. Act for declaration of under Raiyat which was accepted by the Court and then thereafter the land was bifurcated in four plots. In likewise manner, he denied the knowledge of Rent Suit No. 145 of 1919 which was decreed ex parte. He had further denied to have information with regard to filing of Title Suit No. 243/1922 by Bhikari Kuar against Rajeshwari Singh and Surajnath Kuar which was decided in favour of Bhikari Kuar. He also denied the fact that Surajnath Kuar had filed Title Suit bearing No. 229/1922 which was dismissed He had also denied the fact that another Rent Suit No. 1188/1926 was instituted by Dumrao Maharaja wherein, Surajnath Kuar had filed petition disowning the land. He had further stated the total area of land to be 17 Bighas 7 Katthas. He had admitted that he had filed petition for mutation relating to an area 9 Bighas 10 Katthas out of disputed land. He had further stated the total area of land to be 17 Bighas 7 Katthas. He had admitted that he had filed petition for mutation relating to an area 9 Bighas 10 Katthas out of disputed land. He had not got mutation effected in his name with regard to rest of the land. He had further admitted that two revisions were filed before Magistrate bearing no. 75/1999, 73/1999. He had further admitted that 7 Bighas of disputed land was recorded in the name of father of Indrasan Kuar and for that a case no. 30/1999 was filed wherein he lost. He had further admitted that 1856 happened to be C.S. plot but he was not aware with the fact that three RSP Number has been carved out therefrom. He has also submitted that Khatian of the aforesaid land has been recorded in the name of 2nd Party which was objected by him but lost the litigation. He had further stated that under Khata No. 297/1 approximately 39 Bighas of land is found recorded. He had further submitted that till the date of attachment he was over the land. 10. DW-3 is Indrasan Kuar, one of the members of 2nd Party. He in his examination-in-chief had stated that the disputed land happened to be 20 Bighas which belonged to Dumrao Maharaja which was being cultivated by his forefathers and for that they were paying rent to them and after vesting of Jamindari to Bihar Government. During course of Revisional survey Khatian has been prepared in their name against which 1st Party had filed suit wherein he lost. Also submitted that the disputed land happened to be under his possession. Before Revisional survey it was in one block, however, during course of Revisional survey, it has been bifurcated in three sub-plots. The extreme eastern southern having an area of 7 Bighas is cultivated by him. West to his plot is the plot of Ram Sundar Kuar having an area of 3 Bighas and then thereafter happended to Bihari Kuar having an area of 4 Bighas, West- Bihari Kuar. There happened to be presence of Praduman Pandey having an area of 7 Bighas. His name had already been mutated. They are over the land. During cross-examination, he had stated that they are coming over the land since the time of their forefather having their separate possession as stated above. There happened to be presence of Praduman Pandey having an area of 7 Bighas. His name had already been mutated. They are over the land. During cross-examination, he had stated that they are coming over the land since the time of their forefather having their separate possession as stated above. He had further stated that the order passed by DCLR in Mutation Appeal was set aside by the Collector. Then had submitted that the disputed land was in one block during course of C.S. survey bearing Survey Plot No.1856 appertaining to Khata No. 297/1 having boundary, east- Ramji Kuar, West- Nand Kumar Singh, North-Bhagar Chakki and South-Dharmavati River. Then he submitted that the dispute with regard to land is coming since about 2 and ½ years ago. 11. DW-5, DW-7 and DW-8 are the members of the 2nd Party and more or less they have reiterated same version during course of their evidences. The documents are, as stated above consistence thereof. 12. From the evidence of respective parties, it is clearly evident that none of the parties are fully acknowledged with regard to the status of land as they have deposed against their pleading, so far possession is concerned and that happens to be, as is evident on account of alluvian and diluvium and further having fallen under Bihar Province in terms of Trivedi Commission. Documents whatever have relied upon by the members of the 2nd Party are the documents wherefrom connectivity could be located and on account of confused one status regarding identity of the land covering 20 Bighas appears to be inconsistent with the area of the land under dispute. Furthermore, para-5 of the WS is another circumstance which confused the matter. As such, conclusiveness over possession on their terms cannot be arrived at. 13. On the other hand, the evidence of petitioner/1st Party is falling under same infirmity without having any positive as well concrete evidence coming out from the party himself relating to possession over the land inconsonance with physical status of the land. In the aforesaid background, the subsistence of order impugned is not at all found justified and is accordingly, set aside. Petition is allowed. 14. However, it is advisable for the respective parties to get the matter under controversy finally adjudicated upon by the competent court. Petition allowed.