JUDGMENT : (Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioners for quashing the judgment and order dated 4.5.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act) Court No. 1, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 257 of 2018 and impugned order dated 29.9.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pindra, District Varanasi in Case No. 5/5/6/7/11/2012 (Lilawati Devi v. Prabhu Narayan Singh) by which disputed land was released in favour of private respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 namely Lilawati had purchased 1.77 acer land of Arazi No. 726 situated at Mauja Jathi, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi through registered sale-deed dated 24.4.2000 from Sabhajeet Singh on sale consideration of Rs. 3,42,000/-. Smt. Lilawati has applied mutation under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act in the Court of Tehsildar, Pindra which was registered as Case No. 417/74/1235 of 2000. The name of Lilawati was mutated on 8.9.2005 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of mutation dated 8.9.2005 was also dismissed on 10.6.2008. Smt. Lilawati had moved an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. with the allegation that the opposite parties/petitioners herein are interfering in the peaceful possession and they may be restrained not to cut Arhar crops and the police protection be provided to the applicant for cutting the crops. 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pindra, Varanasi had called upon a report from Police Chowki Sindhaura, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi and on relying the police report had issued notices to both the parties to adduce evidence regarding possession, vide order dated 15.4.2005. The order of attachment under Section 146 Cr.P.C. was also passed attaching the crops standing on the disputed land and the SHO, Phoolpur was directed to handover the possession of land as well as crops to any independent person and also submit report. 4. Both the parties appearead before the learned Magistrate and filed their reply. The mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has stated in her reply that the land in dispute was purchased by her from Sabhajeet Singh through registered sale-deed dated 24.4.2000 and since then she is in possession over the same. The opposite parties have no concern with the disputed land but being nephew of previous owner, they are interfering in the possession of applicant. 5. 2 to 5 has stated in her reply that the land in dispute was purchased by her from Sabhajeet Singh through registered sale-deed dated 24.4.2000 and since then she is in possession over the same. The opposite parties have no concern with the disputed land but being nephew of previous owner, they are interfering in the possession of applicant. 5. The opposite parties/petitioners herein had also filed reply stating therein that they are nephew of Sabhajeet Singh who died issue less. Sabhajeet Singh had executed an agreement on 7.1.2000 in favour of opposite parties on payment of Rs. 75,000/- and they are in possession over the disputed property. The possession of applicant Lilawati on the disputed land had been denied. It is further submitted that the police had also submitted report in their favour that they are in possession. 6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced by the parties had recorded the finding that the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 namely Lilawati had purchased the disputed land on 24.4.2000 from Sabhajeet Singh through registered sale-deed. The Original Suit 497 of 2000 filed by opposite parties for cancellation of sale-deed was dismissed on 17.2.2001 and the appeal filed against the order dated 17.2.2001 was also dismissed by order dated 28.2.2001. The suit filed by petitioner No. 1 Prabhu Narayan Singh under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 28.1.2003. The learned Magistrate further has recorded the finding that on the basis of registered sale-deed, the name of Smt. Lilawati was got mutated on 8.9.2005 and the appeal preferred against the order dated 8.9.2005 was dismissed on 10.6.2008. After the death of Smt. Lilawati, the names of private respondents being legal heirs of Smt. Lilawati were also recorded in the revenue records. The learned Magistrate has also recorded the finding that previous owner of disputed land Sabhajeet Singh had denied the execution of any agreement in favour of petitioners and the sale-deed dated 24.4.2018 executed in favour of Smt. Lilawati was accepted. It was also admitted that possession was delivered to Smt. Lilawati at the time of execution of sale-deed. The learned Magistrate after found that the mother of respondent Nos. It was also admitted that possession was delivered to Smt. Lilawati at the time of execution of sale-deed. The learned Magistrate after found that the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was in possession on the basis of registered sale-deed executed prior to preliminary order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and as such, the order of attachment dated 16.4.2005 was withdrawn by order dated 29.9.2018 and land was released in favour of private respondents. 7. Being aggrieved with the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 29.9.2018, the petitioners have preferred criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Court No. 1, Varanasi which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 257 of 2018. 8. The revisional Court after considering the entire evidence and materials which are available on record has recorded the finding that the private respondents are in possession over the disputed property on the basis of registered sale-deed. The mother of private respondents was bona-fide purchasers of land in question and sale-deed as well as possession was admitted by the previous owner of disputed land. The revisional Court has further recorded the finding that even it is assumed that petitioners were in possession as per police report and report of Advocate Commissioner, the possession of petitioners was unlawful. The revisional Court has also recorded the finding that the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was bona-fide purchaser of land in dispute and was in possession over the same. The petitioners have no right or title over the disputed land. The criminal revision filed by petitioners was dismissed by the revisional Court by judgment and order dated 4.5.2022, which is impugned in the present petition. 9. Heard Sri D.S. Khan and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 State of U.P., Sri Anant Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents and perused the record. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession over the property in dispute. The property in question was belonging to uncle of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Sabhajeet Singh who died issue less and the petitioners are cultivating the crops from the life time of Sabhajeet Singh and even after his death they are continuously cultivating the disputed land and are in possession over the same. The property in question was belonging to uncle of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Sabhajeet Singh who died issue less and the petitioners are cultivating the crops from the life time of Sabhajeet Singh and even after his death they are continuously cultivating the disputed land and are in possession over the same. The uncle had also executed an agreement in favour of petitioners after receiving payment of Rs. 75,000/-. The Police Chowki, Sindhaura, Police Station Phoolpur has submitted report on 3.4.2005 in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. stating therein that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession over the disputed land and they cultivating over the same. The possession of petitioners was established from the police report. 11. It is further submitted that the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was never in possession. In the suit filed by petitioners being Original Suit No. 497 of 2000 for cancellation of sale-deed, the Advocate Commissioner was visited at the spot and has also submitted the report that the petitioners are in possession. The learned Magistrate without considering the report of concerned police station as well as Advocate Commissioner regarding possession of petitioners had released the disputed land in favour of private respondents. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider that the petitioners were in possession at the time of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence regarding possession which are in favour of petitioners, have passed the impugned orders which are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents submits that the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 namely Smt. Lilawati is bona-fide purchaser of disputed land from Sri Sabhajeet Singh through registered sale-deed and she was in possession over the same from the date of purchase. After the death of Smt. Lilawati, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 being legal heirs are in possession. The names of respondent nso. 2 to 5 are also recorded in revenue records. The suit filed by petitioners for cancellation of sale-deed was dismissed by the competent Civil Court and appeal preferred by petitioners was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The suit filed by petitioners under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was also dismissed. The names of respondent nso. 2 to 5 are also recorded in revenue records. The suit filed by petitioners for cancellation of sale-deed was dismissed by the competent Civil Court and appeal preferred by petitioners was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The suit filed by petitioners under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was also dismissed. Lastly, it is submitted that both the Courts below after found that the land was purchased by Smt. Lilawati, mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and her name was got mutated in revenue record, her possession was admitted by previous owner and as such has rightly passed the orders in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The petitioners have failed to make out any case in their favour and no ground for interference is made out. The criminal revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with cost. 13. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. Admittedly, the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had purchased the piece of land of Arazi No. 726 area 1.77 acres through registered sale-deed dated 24.4.2000 from Sabhajeet Singh, the uncle of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The name of Smt. Lilawati was got mutated in revenue record. The previous owner of land/executor of sale-deed was also admitted the possession of Smt. Lilawati. The Original Suit No. 497 of 2000 filed by petitioners for cancellation of sale-deed was dismissed on 17.2.2001 and the Civil Appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. After the death of Smt. Lilawati, the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 being legal heirs were also recorded in the revenue record. The uncle of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Sabhajeet Singh had denied the agreement dated 7.1.2000 alleged to be executed in favour of petitioners. The orders of Civil Court are also in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The petitioners have no right or title over the disputed land and the police as well as Advocate Commissioner have submitted incorrect report in favour of petitioners. The petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence in respect of ownership of disputed land. The law has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in series of cases that right of bona-fide purchaser cannot be disturbed by any stranger. 15. The petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence in respect of ownership of disputed land. The law has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in series of cases that right of bona-fide purchaser cannot be disturbed by any stranger. 15. The similar and identical issue has been decided by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 140 of 1990 (Mohammad Hasen and others v. Nazir Hasan and others) decided on 10.4.2000. The relevant para 6 is reproduced herein below : ''In the present case admittedly a sale-deed has been executed in favour of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 by Sultan. There was only an agreement to sale in favour of the revisionist by Sultan. It is not denied that on the basis of the said agreement the revisionists filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale which have been dismissed and the appeal filed by the revisionists have also been dismissed. If it is so, it cannot be said that the revisionists are in possession of the disputed property and the finding of the learned Magistrate was perverse and against the evidence and was rightly set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.'' 16. This Court in the case of Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 342 of 2010 (Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. and another) decided on 4.9.2015, has held that when ownership of disputed property has been determined by a competent revenue Court, the revisionist cannot claim possession over it against wishes of its real owner. The relevant paras 7 and 8 are quoted herein below : ''7. It is admitted fact that revisionist (Shakuntala Devi, wife of Ram Shabd) is not owner and the disputed plot. According to her own version she had been promised by original owners that sale-deed of said property would be executed in her favour, but the same was never executed. It is settled legal position that without registered transfer-deed she cannot be the owner of the said property; and such deed was never executed. It is also not disputed that previous owners of disputed property had executed registered sale-deed of said property in favour of Vikas, whose name has been mutated over said disputed agricultural property by competent revenue Court. It is settled legal position that without registered transfer-deed she cannot be the owner of the said property; and such deed was never executed. It is also not disputed that previous owners of disputed property had executed registered sale-deed of said property in favour of Vikas, whose name has been mutated over said disputed agricultural property by competent revenue Court. When ownership of disputed property has been determined by a competent revenue Court, then revisionist cannot claim possession over it against wishes of its real owner, i.e. opposite party No. 2 Vikas. Proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is initiated as interim measure for maintaining peace till decision of right and title relating to subject-matter. In present competent Court had already decided the ownership right and title of respondent No. -2 (Vikas) over disputed property. As discussed above claim of revisionist over disputed property is proved baseless and without any right. Therefore he had no right to assert any claim over disputed property. 8. Apart from it, record reveals that after obtaining report and considering facts and circumstance relating to the matter in question, and also after application of mind, the SDM, Bansi had come to conclusion that there is no likelihood of breach of peace in respect disputed property. This finding of the Court below is based on facts, before the Court below and appears to be proper and correct. Such finding cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In absence of any likelihood or apprehension of breach of peace, the Court below was perfectly justified in dropping and ending the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order. There is no illegality, impropriety or error in the impugned order that may require interference through exercise of revisional jurisdictional.'' 17. In the present case also the disputed land was purchased by mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 through registered sale-deed and the names of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have already been recorded in the revenue record. The petitioners have failed to prove their ownership or title in respect of the disputed property. The petitioners have no right or claim in respect of disputed property in absence of any registered sale-deed in their favour. 2 to 5 through registered sale-deed and the names of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have already been recorded in the revenue record. The petitioners have failed to prove their ownership or title in respect of the disputed property. The petitioners have no right or claim in respect of disputed property in absence of any registered sale-deed in their favour. Both the Courts below after considering the evidence and materials which are available on record, has rightly passed the orders in favour of private respondents and there is no illegality in any manner. 18. No ground for interference is made out. The matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. 20. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.