Section 145 proceedings determine actual possession, not title, which remains for civil court adjudication.

A proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. in 1992 concerning specified land in Akbarpur, Samastipur, was converted into a proceeding under Section 145.

The petitioner claimed possession through a 1943 sale deed in favour of his grandfather; opposite party no. 2 relied on a 1972 sale deed in favour of his grandfather.

The Executive Magistrate found possession in favour of opposite party no. 2, and the Sessions Court upheld that finding in revision.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Section 482, arguing, among other things, that the findings lacked proper evidentiary support and that no spot verification had occurred. Opposite party no. 2 objected that the application was an impermissible second revision under Section 397(3).

1. Whether the concurrent orders finding opposite party no. 2 to be in possession disclosed illegality warranting interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 application where it was presented as a second revision barred by Section 397(3).

Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to determine actual physical possession, not title; title may be considered only incidentally insofar as it assists in assessing the basis of a possession claim.

The Court relied on Hamid Sheikh and Ors. v. Nazir Dar and Ors., 1963 SCC OnLine J&K 44, for this principle.

It also stated that spot verification is not legally mandatory and that Section 482 jurisdiction is available only where a glaring illegality appears on the face of the record; a second revision cannot be pursued in the guise of an inherent-jurisdiction application where Section 397(3) applies.

The Magistrate had considered the parties’ competing evidence and found that the petitioner’s documents did not match the disputed land, while the evidence supported opposite party no. 2’s possession.

The Court held that the title documents had been considered only incidentally in assessing possession, consistently with Section 145, and that the absence of spot verification did not invalidate the order.

Finding no apparent illegality in either the Magistrate’s order or the revisional court’s order, the Court declined to interfere under Section 482; it also noted the bar against using that provision to mount a second revision.

It clarified that the Section 145 proceedings did not determine title and left both parties at liberty to pursue their title claims before a competent Civil Court.