IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9107 of 2007 Kartik Mandal, son of Late Dhano Mandal, village Udalkhut, Ps Katoria, District Banka – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Raghu Mahto, son of Mallu Mahto, 3. Badri Mahto, 4. Narayan Mahto, 5. Toofani Mahto, 6. Bhutto Mahto, all sons of Raghu Mahto, village Udalkhut, PS Katoria, district Banka – opp. parties. 8 5.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Banka in Case No. 1370/1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 is claiming possession over 2.13 acres of land appertaining to plot no. 85, khata no.2 having boundary i.e. north side Jungle, south – Nano Mahto, East and West – Parti. The Executive Magistrate, Banka while considering the case of the petitioner has taken into account documents filed by him as well as the evidence led by petitioner and has come to the conclusion that the opposite party is in possession of the lands which are claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that the court has wrongly understood the case and has held that the lands of the petitioner measuring 2.13 acres is included in 23 acres of land as claimed by opposite party no. 2 and others. After perusing the order of the Executive Magistrate in detail and considering the evidence led by the petitioner and the other side, it appears that the evidence led by the opposite party is weak 2 inasmuch as one of his witness PW 2 has not only given wrong description of the area of the land but has said that Raghu Mahto is in possession. Similarly PW 4 has also stated that Raghu Mahto has 32 acres of land and PW 5 is not able to give any evidence in favour of the petitioner whereas PW 1 has not been able to give correct facts with respect to the lands pertaining to plot no. 85 and has specifically stated that he is on inimical term. Thus the petitioner’s witnesses do not support his case. In the circumstances I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Magistrate. The petitioner has filed Cr. Revision No. 10/2006 against the order, dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Magistrate. The revisional court has similarly found no apparent error in the order of the Executive Magistrate and dismissed the revision application. Considering the facts aforesaid it would be proper that the party aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, to get a declaration from a competent court with respect to the land in question, if so advised. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)