The Executive Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Cr PC is limited to ascertaining possession and cannot determine title or interest in the property.

1. The present petition has been filed by the Ist party to the proceedings under Section 145, Cr PC bearing case No. 276 M of 2000 which related to a dispute allegedly and particularly to some part of R.S. plot No. 2156 to the extent of 46 decimals of land of village Madhuwan under khata No. 579 within P.S. Janki Nagar in the district of Purnea and the dispute related to the alleged encroachment by the petitioners of the above area of 46 decimals by amalgamating the same with their undisputed plots bearing R.S. plot Nos. 2154, 2148 and 2159 under different khatas in the same village as per the description contained in the impugned order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Banmankhi.

2. Some of the undisputed facts were that three R.S. Plot Nos. 2154. 2148 and 2159 were in the boundary of plot No. 2156 and were definitely under the possession of the petitioners. The opposite party No. 2, i.e., Beer Narayan Yadav, filed a petition for getting his land, bearing R.S. Plot No. 2156, measured by the Anchal Amin of Banmankhi and the report of the Anchal Amin indicated the amalgamation by encroachment of 46 decimals of land as stated at the very out set of the present order. The petitioners father had come undisputedly into the possession of R.S. Plot Nos. 2154, 2148 and 2159 by virtue of a deed of gift and after the death of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners were undisputedly in possession of the same and also in possession of the alleged amalgamated area of 46 decimals of land of R.S. plot No. 2156. Opposite party No. 2 claimed the land through purchase from another person by his father and was coming into possession of the plot. It is not disputed that the Anchal Amirs report is the only basis for the Executive Magistrate to come to the conclusion that the petitioners had illegally enroached upon the land and had come in possession and there was no dispute that either of the parties claimed any of the plots which have been claimed individually by them except that opposite party No. 2 claimed an area of 46 decimals to be earmarked and separated from the amalgamated block formed by three R.S. plot Nos. 2154, 2148 and 2159 which could be, according to him, the part of his land pertaining to R.S. Plot No. 2156.

3. The learned Executive Magistrate held that the father of opposite party No. 2 was in possession and that the encroachment was completed by the petitioners. The learned Executive Magistrate, as such, declared the possession of opposite party No. 2 over the alleged encroached area of 46 decimals of land and directed that the petitioner shall not interfere with the said possession of opposite party No. 2 unless the order dated 5.10.2003 was set aside by a competent civil Court.

4. The petitioners challenged the above order dated 5.10.2003 before the Sessions Court though Cr. Revision Petition No. 351 of 2003 and that petition was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Purnea and the learned Judge dismissed the petition upholding the order of the learned Executive Magistrate declaring the possession of opposite party No. 2 over the said area of 46 decimals of R.S. Plot No. 2156 though he noticed that there was a Title Suit pending between the parties, as may appear from the order dated 2.3.2006 passed in the above noted Criminal Revision Petition (Annexure-2).

5. If one could peruse the provisions of Section 145 of the Cr PC, one could find that the Executive Magistrate could declare the possession of any of the parties to the proceedings only when he has a definite material before him indicating that the dispute was bona fide in respect of a land and was detrimental to peace on account of disputed question of possession. The power of the Executive Magistrate under Section 145, Cr PC is only to ascertain, on holding an enquiry, the possession of a party to the proceedings and to declare him to be in such possession but that declaration could never go beyond a period of two months prior to the dat