IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.8693 OF 2008 1. SURENDRA PANDIT 2. SATENDRA PANDIT BOTH SONS OF BHAGERAN PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAIDALIPUR BAIRAGIBAGH, POLICE STATION MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BISHUNDAYAL PANDIT, SON OF LATE RAGHUPATI PANDIT 3. ANANTU PANDIT, SON OF LATE SUKHDEO PANDIT 2 & 3 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAIRAGIBAGH, POLICE STATION MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA …………………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** 2 17/02/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Opposite Parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2007 passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is clear that the order has no force. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even it has no force, there is a finding which is adverse to the petitioner in the said order. On perusal of the order, I find that the Sub Divisional Officer, Masaurhi has relied on a proceedings under Section 103 (A) of the B. T. Act passed in Case No. 11 of 2001 in which it has been held that in accordance with the evidence and the application filed for correction, the name of Sukhdeo Pandit and Bishun Dayal Pandit, son of Raghupati Pandit are entitled to 2 ANSH whereas Butti Devi, wife of Bhageran Pandit is 2 entitled to 1 ANSH (part). On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 17.06.2005, the Court below has distributed out of a total area of 9 ¼ decimals of land, 3 decimals to the petitioner and the rest to the Opposite Parties. Counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by this part of the order. The learned Magistrate has distributed the land in accordance with the order passed in Case No. 11 of 2001. The order dated 17.06.2005 perhaps has not been challenged by the petitioner in any higher Court. There is no independent order of the Magistrate rather it is the order interpreting the order passed in the proceedings under Section 103 (A) of the B. T. Act. This order has no effect as such it would be a waste of this Court’s time to interfere in the matter. The petitioner may file a suit before an appropriate Court if he is so advised for declaration of title. This application is disposed of as infructuous. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)