IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2089 of 2002 Arbind Kumar, son of Tej Narain Lal, resident of village Chourahi, P.S. Khodamarpur, District- Begusarai …………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. SDO, Mazaul, Dist. Begusarai 3. Aanchal Adhikari, Khodamanpur, P.S. Khodamanpur, District- Begusarai 4. Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Chourahi, Begusarai 5. Dinesh Kumar Lal, son of Gopalji Lal, resident of village- Chourahi, P.S. Khodamanpur, District-Begusarai. ………….. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shiva Nandan Roy, Sr. Advocate and Mrs.Rama Sinha,Advocate For the State: Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to SC V For Respondent No.5: Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, Advocate ----------- 8. 18.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.6.2000 passed by the Circle Officer, Khodamanpur, respondent no.3 by which he has stated that respondent no. 5 has every right to make construction over the land in his possession and also the order dated 27.1.2001 passed by respondent no. 3, referring to the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Manjhaul, District-Begusarai, by which he has deputed a Magistrate to give possession over the land of Khata No. 304 Khesra No. 292 to the respondent no.5. The short facts of this case are that there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 5 with respect to possession over certain portions of the land which the respondent no. 5 claims to be a part of his land which he had purchased through registered sale deed. Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceedings were also initiated with respect to the - 2 - same which were decided by the Magistrate by order dated 10.1.2001 against the petitioner. Subsequently the said order was set aside in Cr. Revision No. 31/2001 by the Sessions Judge. Prior to the same proceedings for measurement of the land was started before the Anchal Adhikari in Misc. Case No. 7/2001 in which it was found that the petitioner was having additional possession over 4 dhurs and 4 dhurkis of land of respondent no. 5. An objection was filed by the petitioner regarding the measurement stating that the same required identification measurement under the provisions of the Bengal Survey Act. Holding that the said facility was not available at his level, the respondent no.5, Circle Officer advised the parties to move before the Additional Collector, Begusarai for the said purpose and the proceedings were quashed. Thereafter on the application of respondent no. 5 the impugned order dated 16.6.2000 was passed stating that he had full right to erect wall over the land within his peaceful possession. Subsequently, it appears that on the application of respondent no. 5, the impugned order dated 27.1.2001 was passed on the basis of the orders of the Sub- Divisional Officer deputing the Block Agriculture Officer as the Magistrate for giving possession over the disputed land to the respondent no. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 had no jurisdiction to pass an order in the Miscellaneous Case No. 7/2000-01 as he has done on 16.6.2000 when the Miscellaneous Case had already been disposed of by the earlier order dated 10.6.2000. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, - 3 - since on the basis of the measurements made the possession of the petitioner was found over the said land and over which the petitioner was also claiming his title on the basis of the measurement being wrong, the Circle Officer had no power to issue an order dated 27.1.2001 deputing the Magistrate for giving possession over the disputed land to respondent no.5. It is submitted that even if it is found that the petitioner was wrongly in possession over the land in question on the basis of the measurement made, it was not open to the Revenue or Magisterial authorities to have passed such an order and it is only a competent Civil Court which can direct the delivery of possession over any such piece of land after coming to a finding that the respondent no. 5 has title over the land. In the said circumstances, it is contended that the order of respondent No.3, Circle Officer is in fact violative of the provisions of law and beyond his power and jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 as also learned counsel for the State was unable to support the action of the Circle Officer in deputing the Magistrate to hand over possession over the land in question, when admittedly the possession belongs to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the Circle Officer having disposed of the matter regarding the measurement of land at his level, he ought not to have passed any further orders in the matter. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ application is allowed and the orders dated 16.6.2000 and 27.1.2001 are quashed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)