IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.20161 of 2010 Md.Badruddin Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 11.08.2011 Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Assisting counsel to G.P. 8 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing of the letters dated 22.11.2010 as contained in Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition, whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagaha has directed the Circle Officer and Officer In-Charge, Ramnagar to submit his report as regarding the harvesting of the crops grown on the land said to be leased with the petitioner. The facts of the matter in brief is that pursuant to a notice dated 29.3.2010 inviting bids for settlement of the plots lying by the side of Triveni Canal bearing plot nos. 378 and 379, the petitioner responded thereto and an area of 1.56 acres by the side of Triveni Canal was settled with the petitioner for a period of one year vide lease dated 16.4.2010. It so appears that certain dispute arose as to the exercise of the possessary right over the land in question between the petitioner and some purcha holders and of which attention was drawn of the Sub-Divisional, Triveni Canal Division, Ram Nagar, District- West Champaran. By the letter impugned in the writ petition which is 2 dated 22.11.2010, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagaha has directed the Circle Officer and Officer In-Charge to give its report as to the allegation made by the purcha holders that the petitioner had harvested the crops standing over the plots in question. By another letter bearing memo No. 784 dated 22.11.2010 the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bagaha has directed the Circle Officer, Ram Nagar to examine the matter. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed. Undoubtedly, the period of settlement has since expired in the month of April, 2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the settlement having been made in his favour, the crops have been cut by the local administration of Bagaha and have been handed over to the purcha holders. He submits that for the said action the petitioner has also instituted a criminal proceeding and which is pending before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. The allegation of the petitioner that the crops had been cut by the district administration does not match with the finding given by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagaha as is manifest from the communication dated 22.11.2010 as contained in Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition. The writ petition raising disputed issues of fact, this Court would not delve into the matter and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)