JUDGMENT :

K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this case the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsuguda, on 2-8-1988 and 20-12-1988, as wen as the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure have been challenged.

2. The Petitioner was a member of the second part and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were members of the first party in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure relating to plot No. 26314824 appertaining to khata No. 106717 of mouza Ektali. Both the parties claimed possession in respect thereof. After they submitted their written statements in the proceeding, the Magistrate made local enquiry of the disputed land in the presence of the parties and their advocate and on the basis of facts noticed by him, he declared possession of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by order dated 2-8-1988. Consequent upon the order, a Revenue Inspector was deputed to effect delivery of possession of the disputed land to the successful party. But it was not possible on his part to do so, because the description of the land, possession of which was to be delivered, was neither specific nor definite by actual