U.B. Saha, J.

1. The instant revision petition is filed by the petitioners, four in numbers, namely, Sri Madhu Sarma, Sri Nirmal Sarma, Sri Ranjit Sarma and Sri Pankaj Sarma, challenging the judgment and order, dated, 18.11.2003 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 19.08.1998 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "Magistrate") in Case No. 52m of 1991 under sections 145 /146 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, "Cr.P.C.") declaring the possession regarding the disputed land in favour of the petitioners who were 2nd party in the proceeding before the Magistrate. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "2nd party-petitioners") as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the OP (hereinafter referred to as "1st party-OP").

2. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The 1st party-OP filed an application on 08.02.1991 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, being No. 52m of 1991 alleging that his father Late Madhab Sarma constructed a house over a plot of land measuring 2 kathas covered by Dag No. 4399, 629 and K.P. No. 584(old), 96(New) at village-Sahar Guwahati Part-VII (Happy villa) under Ulubari Mouza. In the said application, it is stated by the 1st party-OP that 1st party's father late Madhab Sarma was in continuous possession of the disputed land since 1940 till his death in the year 1974 and since then they have been occupying the said land peacefully and the petitioner No. 1 herein i.e. the 2nd party in the original proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was the first cousin who was allowed to take shelter by the 1st party-OP on compassionate ground to live in a temporary house covering 1/2 katha of land on the eastern side of the disputed land and on 02.02.1991 during day time, in absence of the 1st party-OP, the 2nd party men broke open the lock of the 1st party's house standing on the disputed land, removed the household goods and demolished the 1st party's residential house.

3. Upon receipt of the said application, the learned Magistrate had drawn up a proceeding under sections 145/ 146 of the Cr.P.C. on 13.02.1991 apprehending breach of peace in the area where the disputed land was situated and accordingly, he issued notice upon the 2nd party-petitioners. On receipt of the said notice, the 2nd party-petitioners appeared and also filed their written statement denying the allegations made by the 1st party-OP.

4. The case of the 2nd party-petitioners before the Magistrate was that the disputed land was previously infested with jungles and it was a hilly area which was cleared by the 2nd party. Thereafter, it was leveled and devolved. In the year 1939, an ordinary thatched house was raised thereon. Subsequently, it was replaced by an Assam Type house in the year 1968 with pucca plinths covering about 3 lechas of land with pucca floor, brick wall and brick post under Holding No. 38.

5. As the said house of the 2nd party-petitioners was not adequate, he took permission from the Guwahati Municipal Development Authority for construction of the Assam Type house and accordingly, he constructed the Assam Type house within 10 lechas of land. It is also stated that on 02.05.1985, 2nd party Madhu Sarma purchased a plot of land measuring about one katha by a registered Sale Deed for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,000/- and the same land was ultimately mutated in his favour on 10.07.1989. In the order of mutation, it has been clearly stated that there is no dispute over the possession of the land in question.

6. During the proceeding in the Court of Magistrate, the 1st party-OP examined as many as 5 witnesses including himself and exhibited 21 nos. of documents. On the other hand, the 2nd party-petitioners examined 3 witnesses including the 2nd party