IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.618 of 2008 RAMCHANDRA MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 19/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate No.3 for the respondents. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that in spite of the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barh in Case No.133M of 1998, the opposite parties (private respondents herein) have not removed encroachments. Learned Government Advocate No.3 points out that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate itself shows that in case encroachment is not removed by the opposite parties within fifteen days the court will take steps for removal of the encroachment and entire cost of the same shall be realized from the opposite parties. The order also shows that notices under section 141 Cr.P.C. have also been issued to the opposite parties. In that view of the matter, it is apparent that in case opposite parties have not complied the orders of learned Sub-Divisional - 2 - Magistrate, that very court is competent to take further action in the matter. This has to be pointed out by the petitioner by filing a proper application before learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to invoke its jurisdiction for further action in the matter. In case, such a petition is filed by the petitioner, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall take expeditious steps for enforcement of its earlier orders. In view of such remedy available to the petitioner, no order is required to be passed in this writ application and the writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)