ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.02.2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1999/21 of 2001 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda by which the revision application preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the order passed by the Executive Magistrate on 03.11.1997 in T. R. No. 37 of 2002 in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. been affirmed. 2. A proceeding was instituted under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. on the report of the local police and later on the same was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. A Revision application was preferred by the petitioners before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda against the initiation of the preceding and the same was remitted back with certain directions. The proceeding was started with respect to the land situated in Jamabandi Nos. 30, 45, 39 and 58 of Mouza - Kasiatari P.S. Pathargama. In the 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding an order was passed by the Executive Magistrate, Godda, in T.R. No. 37 of 2002 whereby and where under the possession of the second party was declared over the disputed lands and the petitioners being the first party were restrained from going over to the land in dispute. 3. A revision application was preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1999/21 of 2001 which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2002. 4. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V.K. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 to 6. 5. It been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute relates to several plots of land under separate Jamabandi and accordingly there should have been a separate proceeding and not a consolidated proceeding as been done. It been submitted that the Executive Magistrate, Godda did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners while coming to the conclusion that the second party members are in possession of the disputed land. It further been submitted that the Executive Magistrate, Godda did not give any finding with respect to two plots of land although the dispute was with respect to Jamabandi Nos. 30, 45, 39 and 58. It been submitted that the witness nos. It further been submitted that the Executive Magistrate, Godda did not give any finding with respect to two plots of land although the dispute was with respect to Jamabandi Nos. 30, 45, 39 and 58. It been submitted that the witness nos. 2, 3 and 4 were never parties in the 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding as they were stranger and their evidence could not have been taken into consideration while declaring the possession of the second party members. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the case of the petitioners not been stated by the revisional court as nothing been indicated as to what caused the revisional court to dismiss the revision application preferred by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to 6 submitted that the order passed by the Executive Magistrate dealt in details with the respective cases of the first party as well as the second party on the question of possession and had ultimately come to the conclusion that the second party members were in possession of the disputed property and the petitioners first party were restrained from going over to the disputed property. It been submitted that the revisional court had considered this fact that the second party members were Jamabandi raiyat and the land stood recorded in the name of their father and ancestor. It been submitted that the revisional court had also appreciated the stand of both the parties and thereafter dismissed the revision and since there are two concurrent orders in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, no interference is warranted in the revisioanl order dated 12.02.2002. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly concentrated on two aspects, the first being no finding been given with respect to two plots contained in Jamabandi No. 39 and Jamabandi No. 30. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Executive Magistrate, Godda had based some of his reasoning on the witnesses adduced by the second party but most of the said witnesses were never party to the proceeding and were total strangers. 8. Thus, the contentions as it appears from the order passed by the revisional court on 12.02.2002 were never considered and the revisional court had only considered the fact that the land in question stood recorded in the name of the father and ancestor of the second party. 8. Thus, the contentions as it appears from the order passed by the revisional court on 12.02.2002 were never considered and the revisional court had only considered the fact that the land in question stood recorded in the name of the father and ancestor of the second party. The revisional order, therefore, is non-reasoned order which not touched the contentions raised by the petitioners. In such circumstance, therefore, the order dated 12.02.2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1999/21 of 2001 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the learned revisional court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the contentions raised by both the parties with respect to the legality or otherwise of the order dated 03.11.1997 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Godda in T.R. No. 37 of 2002. 9. This application is disposed of. 10. Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith. Application disposed of.