IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17204 of 2009 1. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O LATE GUPTESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL KHUDWAN,P.S.KHUDWAN,DISTT-AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AURANGABAD 3. THE SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER DAUDNAGAR, AURANGABAD 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER OBERA,DISTT- AURANGABAD 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AURANGABAD 6. SMT. SHANTI DEVI W/O NAGNATH SAW R/O VILL KHUDWAN, P.S.KHUDWAN,DISTT-AURANGABAD 7. NAGNATH SAW S/O LATE MALLU SAW R/O VILL KHUDWAN, P.S.KHUDWAN,DISTT-AURANGABAD 8. PAWAN KUMAR S/O NAGNATH SAW R/O VILL KHUDWAN, P.S.KHUDWAN,DISTT-AURANGABAD 9. GAYANTI DEVI D/O NAGNATH SAW R/O VILL KHUDWAN, P.S.KHUDWAN,DISTT-AURANGABAD ----------- 2. 4.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks mandamus commanding the respondent State authorities to provide Police protection to enable construction by him upon his lands identified as Khata No. 275, Plot No. 1720, having an area of 5 ¼ decimal in pursuance of orders passed in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2008-09 on 30.6.2008. It is submitted that respondent nos. 7 to 9 sought unlawful obstruction and enjoyment of the lands by the petitioner leading to proceeding by them under Section 133 Cr. P.C. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Daudnagar held that the obstruction being 2 created by the respondent nos. 7 to 9, was unlawful and the petitioner was entitled to enjoy and make construction upon his own vended lands. Notwithstanding the recommendation of respondent no. 3, for grant of Police protection, the same is not forthcoming hindering construction. The State respondents have filed counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State from the order of the Anchala Adhikari dated 30.6.2008 points out that respondent nos. 7 to 9 are alleged to have encroached on 209.5 sq. ft. of the lands being claimed by the petitioner. It is next submitted from the order of respondent no. 3, dated 16.7.2009 that he has ordered for deployment of Police for delivery of possession to the petitioner. Placing reliance on Paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, it is submitted that it is more than apparent that the matter relates to handing over of possession of allegedly encroached lands. On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the pleadings and documents, the Court is unable to decipher if the petitioner seeks the relief to make construction of lands already in his possession or whether any area 3 of his lands have been unlawfully encroached and possession of the same is required to be handed over to him. A proceeding under Section 133 Cr. P.C. deals with the removal of nuisance. If the private respondents were interfering with the enjoyment of his lands by the petitioner already in his possession, it may amount to a nuisance and orders may be issued to prevent such nuisance. But if any part of the lands in which nuisance being claimed has been occupied by another, then it becomes a question of delivery of possession of lands for which the appropriate remedies may be either in a suit or proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr. P.C. If the petitioner is already in possession of his vended lands for which Jamabandi is stated to have also been created in his name, any obstruction in the enjoyment of the lands by him by a 3rd person without authority of law would undoubtedly entitle the petitioner to Police protection. Conversely, if he is not in possession of any area of his own lands and it has been occupied by private respondent nos. 7 to 9, the order dated 30.6.2008 in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2008-09 cannot vest in him a right to reclaim possession of the lands unless and until he obtained orders from a competent Civil Court or in 4 appropriate proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr. P.C. In the latter event, the question of providing him Police protection at this stage for resumption of possession does not arise under the order dated 30.6.2008. The writ application is disposed off in the aforesaid terms with directions to the District Magistrate to examine matters appropriately and act in accordance with law as discussed in the present order within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)