IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.827 of 2005 1. BIJENDRA BHAGAT 2. HANS RAJ BHAGAT --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. LAXMAN BHAGAT 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPP. PARTY. For the petitioners : Mr. Lal Bahadur Singh,APP For the O.Ps : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. J.K.Singh no.1, APP ----------- 08. 11.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, opposite parties and the State. Second party to the proceeding initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide case no. 257 of 2000/Tr. No. 99 of 2002 ( Laxman Bhagat vs. Bijendra Bhagat) is before the Court and raise a grievance against the order dated 09.07.2005 passed in the aforesaid proceeding by the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad whereby on a consideration of the materials placed on record including the oral evidence possession in respect of the subject land has been declared in favour of the first party to the said proceeding ( opposite parties herein). The case of the petitioner’s is that they acquired the subject land by two sale deeds executed on 26.7.99 and 27.11.99 by one Karmu Bhagat who was own brother of the first party (opposite parties herein). On the other hand, case of the first party (opposite parties herein) is that the land belonged to the family of the opposite parties. Admittedly the land belongs to 2 the family of the opposite parties herein and as per opposite parties in an amicable partition the same was allotted in the share of the first party to the proceeding( opposite parties herein). It is also the case of the opposite parties that sale deeds allegedly executed by one Karmu Bhagat were brought into existence by fraudulently. This led to filing of a criminal case against the petitioners herein under Sections 420/120 of the Penal Code which was pending consideration. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that the Court below found that the mutation papers shown by the petitioners were subsequent to the alleged sale effected in their favour. It is further seen therefrom that both the parties were given adequate opportunities to place on record their respective documents and to adduce oral evidence in respect of their cases. On an analysis of those materials/ documents, learned Court below has arrived at a conclusion that the first party (opposite parties herein)were found in possession of the subject land. While exercising revisional jurisdiction this Court may not delve into the realm of appreciation of evidence unless it is shown to be perverse and or completely illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are few observations in the order impugned which may affect their title as asserted by them. It is also pointed out that after passing of the impugned order the criminal case launched by the first party (opposite parties herein) have ended in acquittal. Be that as it may, since the impugned order is based on 3 appraisal of evidence on record brought by the respective parties and no perversity in consideration whereof has been shown to me I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The application is dismissed. However, this Court is persuaded to observe that any findings relating to title in the impugned order shall not prejudice the party who wish to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief(s). Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)