IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2621 of 2011 1. Prem Chand Sinha, s/o- Late Yogendra Prasad, r/o- Drampadi Apartment No. 6, Shastri Nagar, Patna. 2. Pyare Chand Sinha, s/o- Late Yogendra Prasad, r/o- Dogar Lane No. 18/22/1, Tollyganj, Kolkata 700029. 3. Pradeep Chand Sinha, s/o- Late Yogendra Prasad, r/o- Regency Apartment, New Patliputra Colony, Patna. All the three petitioners are represented through their Power of Attorney Holder Manoj Kumar Singh, s/o- Ram Janam Singh, r/o- Mohalla Civil Lines, P.S.- Arrah Nawadah, District- Bhojpur. ……… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Pratibha S. Verma, The Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah, District- Bhojpur (Bihar). 2. Dharmesh Kumar Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Arrah, District-Bhojpur (Bihar). 3. Arun Kumar, Municipal Commissioner, Arrah Municipal Corporation, Arrah, District- Bhojpur (Bihar). 4. G.M. Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Arrah, District- Bhojpur (Bihar). 5. Rajiv Ranjan, Circle Officer, Sadar Arrah, District- Bhojpur (Bihar). 6. Kamat Prasad, Officer-in-Charge, P.s.- Nawada, Bhojpur, District- Bhojpur (Bihar). ……… Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate For the State :Mr. Shubhankar Shauna, A.C. to G.P. 11 ----------- 2 13.07.2011 Petitioners allege willful violation of order dated 29.4.2011 passed on C.W.J.C. No. 1321 of 2011. By the aforesaid order, this Court quashed Annexure-4 which was based on an oral order. Operative portion of the said order reads as under: “It thus appears from bare perusal of the said order that petitioners have been restrained from enjoying their property by an oral order. In the backdrop of facts emanating from the records, this Court cannot countenance such order directly infringing the right of a citizen to enjoy his/her property resting on an oral instruction of the higher revenue authority. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the said order as contained in annexure-4 he quashed and set aside.“ 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners is fair in his submission that by the said order, this Court did not decide the right, title and interest of the petitioner relating to the plot in question being plot No. 167 measuring an area of 6.42 acres. It is submitted that the opposite parties have initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in which notices have been issued to the petitioner. If there is any apprehension of breach of peace relating to a piece of land, the authorities are well within their jurisdiction to take preventive measures. Petitioners are required to respond to the said notice and satisfy the authority that they are not responsible for such apprehension and/or there is no apprehension of breach of piece. In my view, by initiating proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., the authorities have not willfully acted in breach of the order. The application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)