IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.32 of 2008 SATYA NARAYAN MUKHIYA, S/O LATE BAISHAKHI MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANPUR, GODHIYARI, P.S. MADHEPURA, DISTRICT MADHEPURA .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI RAGHUNAI MUKHIYA, S/O LATE ANUPLAL MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANPUR, GODHIYARI, P.S. MADHEPURA AND DISTRICT MADHEPURA .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /3/ 09.04.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order, dated 03.08.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, I, Madhepura, by which he has confirmed the order, dated 14.05.2003. It is alleged that the first party claimed that the lands belong to the second party even their house is there to the south in two hands width and 80 hands length is used as rasta by them since long which he has been obstructed by member of the second party from 26.06.1996 and further the first party has got no other rasta for coming and going and the proceeding instituted under Section 147 and after considering the order of the learned counsel found and declared the first party has got the right of user upon the land with a direction that the second party 2 shall not obstruct such first party in using the land as rasta since long which is still in existence. Against the impugned order the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge and the District Judge after considering the facts and circumstances dismissed the revision and being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several persons who are owners of the land in addition to this petitioner. He has further contended that the Executive Magistrate made local inspection, but, did not give any report of the inspection. It has further been contended that the property is ancestral property of the petitioner and further that the order has been passed by the Executive Magistrate, which is beyond jurisdiction. However, if some of the persons having the owner of the land not made party which is not affecting the petitioner. 3. However, a right of user under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code can only be claimed on the land of other and the opposite party or the first party is not claiming the land of the petitioner. They are further claiming the right of user and, hence, the ownership is not considered, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive Magistrate 3 has no jurisdiction to pass the order. However, there is no basis or ground for the submission. Hence, there is no merit in the submission and the local inspection is only for the purpose of appreciating evidence. However, the local inspection is not of much relevance and not to be taken into consideration as evidence. 4. Hence, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is dismissed. However, petitioner may pursue other legal remedy available to him. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )