IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.428 of 2009 Savitri Devi w/o Ram Prasad Mandal, resident of village- Gauriganj, P.S.- Kadwa, District- Katihar…. Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Arjun Rai s/o Late Kailu Rai, resident of village- Pipra, P.S. Dandkhora, District- Katihar. 3. Triloki Rai, s/o Late Kailu Rai, resident of village- Pipra, P.S.- Dandkhora, District- Katihar. … Opposite parties. ----------- 6. 25.07.2011 The first party, petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by learned Executive Magistrate, Katihar in Case No. 116 M/1999 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by which the second party, opposite parties have been declared in possession of the land in question. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha-2, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh No.1, learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Magistrate has not inspected the land in question and secondly, the learned Magistrate who has passed the order has not heard the learned counsel for the parties. After hearing both the parties and on 2 perusal of impugned order and other material available on records, it appears that the petitioner filed a petition dated 22.10.1999 for initiating a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. , a report was called for from the Anchal Adhikari, Katihar who has submitted the enquiry report dated 25.11.1999 and thereafter a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated. Both the parties have filed their show cause and thereafter the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the matter cannot be resolved in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and for deciding the question of possession of the land in question, the proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by order dated 21.1.2000. Again both the parties were given notice and they were directed to file written statement. Land in question is in Mouza Dwashya, Thana No. 35, Khata No. 560, Plot No. 06, area 52 ½ decimals. The case of the first party, petitioner is that Ari Rai purchased the land in question vide sale deed no. 3667 dated 4.3.1963 and thereafter Ari Rai got his name mutated. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased 3 the land vide sale deed no. 4947 dated 26.5.1999 and got her name mutated and she has also been paying rent. The case of second party, opposite party is that Santoshi Rai had sold the land more than his share. The total area of the land is 1.05 acres of which Hafalu Hajara son of Biraju Hajara was entitled to get half share. Santoshi Hajara, Triloki Hajara, Lahin Hajara, all sons of Kailu Hajara were entitled to get the half share of that land but Santoshi Rai @ Santoshi Hajara had sold the land more than his share. The further case of opposite party, second party is that Ari Rai did not get possession over the land. The land remained in possession of second party. Santoshi Rai had sold more land than his share. It appears that the report of Anchal Adhikari was on record which has been considered by the learned Magistrate. It further appears from the impugned order as well as copy of order-sheet which has been annexed in this petition that hearing of the case was concluded by the predecessor Magistrate and thereafter the record came in his file and thereafter notices were given to both the 4 parties. After hearing both the parties, the impugned order has been passed. Learned Magistrate has considered the possession of the parties and has also considered the evidence adduced on behalf of all the parties and thereafter he has come to the conclusion that land in question is in possession of the second party. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)