18. 04.01.2017 Sri Ranjit Kumar Jena ………. Petitioner -Versus- Sri Amareswar Jena & others ………. Opp. Parties The petitioner Ranjit Kumar Jena has challenged the impugned order dated 19.05.2009 passed by Executive Magistrate, Nimapara in Criminal Misc. Case No. 298 of 2007 in declaring the possession of the scheduled land i.e. Bheda (ridges) with the opp. parties who are the second party members. It appears that at the instance of the petitioner, a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in the Court of learned Executive Magistrate, Nimapara vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 298 of 2007 in which the opp. parties were the second party members. On 27.08.2007 the learned Executive Magistrate passed the preliminary order and restrained the opp. parties from entering upon the case land which appertains to Mouza- Banakhandi P.S.-Konark, Khata No. 160, Chaka No. 230, Plot No. 1078, Area Ac.2.00 decimal. It further appears from the order sheet that on 26.10.2007 the proceeding was converted to one under section 145 of Cr.P.C. and during course of such proceeding, the petitioner examined one witness and the opp. parties also examined two witnesses. The learned Executive Magistrate considering the evidence adduced by both the sides was of the view that Chaka No. 230, Plot No. 1078, Ac. 2.00 decimal stands recorded in the CRLREV No. 915 of 2009 2 2 k name of Ranjit Kumar Jena (petitioner) in stitiban status vide Khata No. 160. He also found that one Amareswar Jena is the adjacent land owner of Chaka No. 227 and 221 which stands towards the western side of the Chaka No. 230 of the first party member-petitioner. After going through the evidence, the learned Executive Magistrate was of the opinion that the Veda (ridges) between the Plot Nos. 1078 and 1066, 1059 belonged to the owner of the Plot Nos. 1059 and 1066 of the second party members-opp. parties who are in possession and accordingly declared the possession of the second party members. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order contended that the learned Executive Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the Amin’s report in demarcation case no. 96 of 2006 has also not been taken into consideration and therefore, it is a fit case where the revisional jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised and the impugned order should be set aside. Learned counsel for the opp. parties on the other hand contended that the impugned order indicates that the learned Executive Magistrate has considered the evidence of the witnesses adduced by both the sides and was of the view that the opp. parties are in possession of the Bheda (ridges) and since there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the same should not be interfered with. 3 3 Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the available materials on record, I find that the evidence adduced by both the sides have been taken note of the learned Executive Magistrate, Nimapara. In a proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C., the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute cannot be decided. The party in whose favour possession of the subject of dispute is declared, is entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The preliminary object of the section is to prevent breach of public peace arising in respect of a dispute relating to immovable property. It is not the duty of the Magistrate to decide the right, title or interest of any of the parties over the subject of dispute. The petitioner is at liberty to file a suit for appropriate relief in the competent Court which can be adjudicated in the accordance with law. Since, I find no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. ….……………… S.K.Sahoo, J. 4 4 5 5