Jitendra Kumar, J.—The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Siwan in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2001, whereby learned Sessions Court has allowed the revision petition setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2000 passed by learned Executive Magistrate, Maharajganj in proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr.PC in Trial No. 22 of 2000 and possession of first party Suba Ram over the disputed land is confirmed and the second party who are petitioners herein are directed not to interfere in the possession of the first party over the land in question.

2. The factual background of the case is that in view of report dated 15.10.1988 of Officer-in-charge of local Police Station, proceeding under Section 144 Cr.PC was initiated. As per the report, there was tension prevailing between two parties on account of land dispute. However, subsequently by the order dated 31.12.1988, the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.PC was closed and proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC was initiated after hearing both the parties.

3. As per the preliminary order dated 31.12.1988, whereby the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC has been initiated, both the parties admit that khatiyani raiyat of the land in question is Jita Chamar. However, the first party Suba Ram claims that he is legal heir/successor of said Jita Chamar. He is also claiming that he is in possession of the property in question. As per his claim, some house are also built over some part of the land. However, as per second party, who are petitioners herein, they have got this land in execution of mortgage decree and they are also paying land revenue to the Government. Hence, learned S.D.M. found that there is dispute between the parties in regard to possession and it is not possible for him to decide who is in actual possession, hence, requiring enquiry under Section 145 Cr.PC.

4. During proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC, both the parties filed their written statements and examined their witnesses in support of their claim. After inquiry, learned S.D.M. came to the conclusion by the order dated 16.11.2000 that second party who are petitioners herein were in possession of the land in dispute and first party who are O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 herein are restrained from creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the second party till any order by competent Civil Court in this regard.

5. Subsequently, the first party Suba Ram preferred criminal revision bearing No. 44 of 2001 wherein learned Sessions Court set aside the order of Executive Magistrate dated 16.11.2000 vide his order dated 26.08.2011. Against the said order dated 26.08.2011, the petitioners herein preferred Criminal Revision bearing No. 1121 of 2012 before this Court, wherein this Court set aside the said order dated 26.08.2011 passed by learned Sessions Court and remitted the matter to the Sessions Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Subsequently, the impugned order has been passed whereby learned Sessions Court allowed the criminal revision setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2000 passed by learned Executive Magistrate, Maharajganj and held that it is the first party Suba Ram who is in possession of the property in question.

6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. To substantiate his submission, he further submits that learned Sessions Court has wrongly held that O.P. Nos. 2 to 5, who are legal heirs of first party before learned S.D.M., are in possession of the subject property. As a matter of fact, it is the petitioners who have title to the property as they have got this property in execution of a decree and they are also in possession of the sam