IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13231 of 2011 1. Ashish Kumar Rajgarhia S/O Ashok Kumar Rajgarhia R/O Lal Bazar, Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah Town, Distt. West Champaran, Bihar ……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Collector R/O West Champaran, Bettiah 2. The Bettiah Estate, Under Court Of Wards, Through Its Manager, At & Po- Bettiah R/O P.S. Bettiah Town, Distt. West Champaran 3. Hira Ram S/O Jangi Ram R/O Vill. Banuchapar, P.O. & P.S. Bettiah Mufassil 4. Arun Kumar Patel S/O Late Raghunath Patel R/O Mohalla Purani Gudri, P.O. & P.S. Bettiah Town Distt. West Champaran 5. Badari Devi W/O Late Ramchandra Raut R/O Vill. Khairatia, P.O. + P.S. Chanpatia, Distt. West Champaran 6. Binod Raut Adopted Son Of Late Ramchandra Raut R/O Vill. Khairatia, P.O.+ P.S. Chanpatia, Distt. West Champaran 7. Birbal Yadav S/O Devraj Yadav R/O Parvatia Tola, P.S. Bettiah Mufassil, Distt. West Champaran 8. Vijay Yadav S/O Devraj Yadav R/O Parvatia Tola, P.S. Bettiah Mufassil, Distt. West Champaran………..Respondents. ---------------------------------- 4 30.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 3.6.2011 passed by Sub-Judge-III, West Champaran Bettiah in Title Suit No. 44 of 1995 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 15.1.2011 in the court below praying for deputation of two section police force through the Superintendent of Police Bettiah West Champaran and for deputation of one Executive Magistrate by S.D.O. Bettiah. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner was dispossessed by the defendant nos. 4 and 5 and then application was filed before the court below for 2 mandatory injunction and the learned court below directed delivery of possession to the petitioner and in fact with the police help the petitioner was put in possession over the suit property. However on 19.12.2010 the said defendant nos. 4 and 5 had again dispossessed the petitioner from the suit premises and therefore, for redelivery of possession this application was filed before the court below but the court below has rejected the same erroneously. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner has not prayed for mandatory injunction before the court below after the dispossession as alleged by him on 19.12.2010 the petitioner directly applied for police deputation on the ground that he has been dispossessed. In such view of the matter, whether the petitioner has been dispossessed or not was never investigated by the court below. The petitioner by the application under section 151 C.P.C. directly applied for deputation of police force and the learned court below rejected the same. In view of the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. M.Rahman (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)