IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26042 of 2009 BISAN LAL SAH @ BISNU & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Prem Kumar Jha & Arun Kumar Jha Advocates. For the O.P.No. 2 : Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr Parmeshwar Mehta,APP ------- 4. 02.04.2010 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for opposite party no. 2. A proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated in respect of certain lands at the behest of opposite party no. 2 on 18.4.1995 in the Court of Sub-divisional Executive Magistrate, Araria vide Case No. 179(M)/95 . On 18.9.1995 the same was converted to one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. From the impugned order of the Magistrate dated 6.5.2006 it is more than apparent undisputedly that the residential house in question has been constructed by the petitioners as far back as 1995 and belongs to them with possession vesting in them. There appears to be no controversy with regard to the title and possession of the residential house. Section 145 Cr.P.C. deals with a dispute with regard to land or water. Section 145 (2) Cr.P.C. while defining ‘land’ for the purpose of the Section states that it includes building. Therefore, if there was a dispute with regard to possession of a building the provision may have its application. But, when the finding of the Magistrate is clear that the title and possession of the building in question was with the petitioners, there was no jurisdiction in the Magistrate to direct the petitioners to remove their residential house from the land in exercise of powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by directing the petitioners to demolish their house so that possession of the land could be handed over to the opposite party no. 2. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 finds it difficult to persuade this Court of the jurisdiction in the Magistrate to order demolition of the building in exercise of powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The revisional order upholding the direction of the Magistrate dated 6.5.2009 in Cr. Rev. No. 198 of 2006 passed by lst Additional Sessions Judge, Araria is therefore bad on the same reasoning. Both the impugned orders are set aside. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties in so far as title and possession declaration whereof by the competent civil court is concerned. This application is accordingly allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)