IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.112 OF 2008 1. SHIV NATH SAH, SON OF LATE UTTIM KALWAR 2. KASHI PRASAD JAISWAL, SON OF SRI SHIV NATH SAH BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN…………….………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI ARUN KUMAR, SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 3. SRI BRINDA LAL, EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 4. SRI MADAN KUMAR ANAND, SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 5. SRI K.M. GUPTA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, PAKRIDAYAL POLICE STATION, PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 6. SRI ANIL KUMAR, SUB-INSPECTOR, PAKRIDAYAL POLICE STATION, PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 7. SRI RAM RAJ SINGH, ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR, PAKRIDAYAL POLICE STATION, PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 8. SRI ANIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL 9. SRI SUSHIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL, BOTH SONS OF SRI NAND KISHORE KEJRIWAL AND RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BAIRAGANIA, P.O. & P.S. BAIRAGANIA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 10. SRIKANT PRASAD @ CHIRKUT SAH 11. BINOD PRASAD 12. NARAYAN PRASAD 13. ANIL PRASAD, ALL SONS OF LATE RAM PRASAD SAH AND RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 14. AJAY PRASAD, SON OF LATE JOGENDRA SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 15. MUNNA PRASAD , SON OF LATE RAGHUBIR SAH, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PAKRIDAYAL, P.O. & P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 16. CHHOTE LAL SAH, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SURHA, P.S. MUFFASIL, MOTIHARI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN…RESPONDENTS **** - 2 - 4. 23.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been listed under the heading “For orders” on office notes. However, from the prayer of the petitioners made in paragraph 1 of this writ application, it appears that a criminal writ application is not maintainable in the matter. Petitioners in this writ application have prayed for payment of compensation for damage caused to their house, shop, godown and standing crops over plot nos. 1353 and 1668 at the hands of respondent no.8 on the basis of some orders of respondent no.2, namely, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakridayal within the district of East Champaran. This cannot be decided in criminal writ jurisdiction. Petitioners will be at liberty to take steps for claiming damages, as claimed, before an appropriate court in accordance with law. So far as this writ application is concerned, the same is dismissed. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)