IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.877 of 2008 ALLAUDDIN MIAN SON OF MAJID MIAN, MUTAWALLI-CUM- SECRETARY, R/O MOHALLA- AFIM KOTHI, MASJID ABDUL BARI ROAD (SARAI ROAD), DAUDNAGAR, P.O. AND P.S. DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, DAUD NAGAR, P.S. AND P.O. DAUD NAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 3. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, DAUD NAGAR, P.S. DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. 4. KIFAYAT MIAN 5. BUTU MIAN 6. BHUKHAN MIAN, ALL SONS OF LATE SHAKOOR MIAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- ABDUL BARI ROAD, SRAI ROAD, DAUD NAGAR, P.O. AND P.S. DAUD NAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. ----------- 8 13.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the respondent nos. 4 to 6. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 20th of June 2007, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Danapur, in Misc. Case Co. 572 of 2007, whereby the Sub- divisional Magistrate directed the Officer In-Charge of the concerned police station to take into consideration the order of the Civil Court and shall take action in accordance with law. With the above direction, the aforesaid case was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned police official, on the basis of the aforesaid order, 2 evicted the petitioner from the possession of the house in question. Although, the decree of the Court was in favour of the other side, however, the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid decree in title appeal which is still pending in the lower appellate court. The submission is that pursuant to the above order, the police acted illegally in evicting him from the house in question. Learned counsel for the State as also the respondent nos. 4 to 6 submits that the only direction was given to act according to law taking into consideration the decree of the Civil Court which cannot be said to be illegal. Considering the submissions of the parties as also on perusal of the aforesaid impugned order, it appears that the only direction was given to the Officer In-Charge to take action according to law. Considering the order of the decree in favour of the first party of the aforesaid case, in my opinion, it calls for no interference. However, it will be open for the petitioner to take remedial action as permissible under the law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The application is accordingly disposed of. Amrendra (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.) 3