ORDER
S.K. Pande, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC is directed against the order dated 16-4-96, passed by 1st ASJ, Rewa in Criminal Revision No. 43/96 arising out of order dated 3-4-96 passed by SDM, Sirmour in Cr. Case No. 43/82.
2. The dispute relates to agricultural land khasra No. 291 Area 6.374 Village Hinouta, Tehsil Sirmour, Distt. Rewa. Respondent Badri Prasad lodged a report alleging inter alia that he being the owner, remained in possession of the disputed land however on 26-3-82 the petitioners entered into the field and forcibly removed the crop. On this, an Istagasa under Section 145, Cr.PC was filed against respondent Badri Prasad and petitioners. After passing the preliminary order the SDM affected attachment of the disputed land and it was given on Supurdnama to 3rd person. Petitioners contended that Jeewan Lal, Chhotelal and Rajendra Prasad were the recorded owner of the disputed land and vide Regd. Sale Deed dated 27-8-80 sold it to petitioner Ramadhar. Accordingly, petitioner Ramadhar remained in possession of the disputed land and on his behalf it was cultivated by the petitioners. In answer to this, the case of the respondent was that in fact he was the owner of the disputed land and Jeevan Lal, Chhotelal, Rajendra Prasad since threatened to dispossess, C.S. No. 62-A/81 in the Court of 4th Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa was filed. It resulted into the compromise and vide order dated 3-10-81 C.S. No. 62-A/81 was decreed declaring the respondent Badri Prasad to be the owner in possession since 24-6-67. The sale deed dated 27-8-80 executed by Jeevan Lal, Chhotelal, Rajendra in favour of the petitioner Ramadhar, was of no effect. Finally Cr. Case No. 43/82 under Section 145 of Cr.PC was disposed of by the SDM vide order dated 3-4-96. On the basis of decree against the sellers in C.S. No. 62- A/81, the SDM held respondent Badri Prasad to be the owner in possession of the disputed land since 24-6-67. In view of the decree dated 3-10-81 the subsequent sale deed by Jeevan Lal, Chhotelal, Rajendra Prasad was of no effect. On the basis of sale deed dated 27-8-80, petitioner Ramadhar never obtained possession nor his possession was recorded in revenue record. Consequently, vide order dated 3-4-96, the SDM held respondent Badri Prasad to be in possession of the disputed land on the date of preliminary order and attachment. Therefore, directed restoration of possession of disputed land to the respondent.
3. Against the order aforesaid dated 3-4-96 passed by the SDM, petitioners preferred Cr. Revision No. 43/96 before 1st ASJ, Rewa. The Court below affirming the order aforesaid passed by SDM vide impugned order dated 16-4-96, dismissed the revision.
4. Admittedly Jeevan Lal, Chhotelal, Rajendra Prasad were recorded owner of the disputed land. The case of petitioner Ramadhar is that he purchased the disputed land vide Regd. Sale Deed dated 27-8-80 and obtained the possession. In C.S. No. 62-A/81 vide order dated 3-10-81 the suit was decreed to the effect that respondent Badri Prasad remained in possession of the suit land as owner thereof since 24-6-67. Accordingly, Jeevan Lal, Chhotelal, Rajendra Prasad were restrained from creating disturbance in his possession.
5. There is nothing on record to suggest that in fact petitioner Ramadhar with reference to sale deed dated 27-8-80 obtained possession of the disputed land from Jeevan Lal, Chhotelal, Rajendra. Their title was not affirmed by Civil Court in C.S. No. 62-A/81. The case of the respondent Badri Prasad is that he remained in continuous possession of the disputed land since 24-6-67 and on 26-3-82 for the first time petitioners crated disturbance leading to breach of peace. On the basis aforesaid, report of alleged incident under Section 145 of Cr.PC was lodged. The SDM in order dated 3-4-96 categorically held that at no point of time petitioner Ramadhar was in possession of the disputed land. His possession was never recorded in revenue record and his application under Sections 115 and 116 M.P.L.R. Code for rectification of khasra was also dismissed.
6. Therefore, it can not be said that the Courts below wrongly held that respondent Badri Prasad was in possession of the disputed land on the date of preliminary order as well as affecting attachment. Restoration of possession to respondent Badri Prasad can not be said to be unjustified.
7. Consequently, no case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been made out. Petition fails and is dismissed.