IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2010 of 2010 RAM KUMAR VERMA S/O SRI RAMDEO PRASAD @ BRAHMDEO PRASAD R/O VILL.- FATEHPUR, POST- SAJOUR, P.S.- SAHKUND DISTT.- BHAGALPUR. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR BHAGALPUR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BHAGALPUR 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BHAGALPUR 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 5. THE D.C.L.R. SADAR BHAGALPUR 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER SAHKUND, BHAGALPUR. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari. For the Intervener : Mr. Mrigank Mauli. Mr. Vinay Mistry. Mr. Kundan Mishra. For the State : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, AC to GP-10. ------------ 04 20.05.2010 By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bhagalpur dated 25.01.2010, by which he has refused to interfere with order dated 25.05.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in Misc. Case No.790/87/93/98. An intervention application has been filed pointing out that what is being assailed in the present writ petition is an alleged notice to remove encroachment. It is wrong to say that it was a notice with reference to Public Land Encroachment Act. It is a notice to implement final orders passed in a proceedings initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C., which was converted into Section 147 Cr.P.C. proceedings. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. It appears that way back in 1987, a proceeding was - 2 - initiated against the petitioner for causing obstruction on public pathway and, thus, causing nuisance. Those proceedings were converted into proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C. In those proceedings, final orders were passed after hearing the parties. The public was using a pathway over six decades, which was now encroached upon by the petitioner, causing obstruction and, as such, petitioner was directed to remove those obstruction. Petitioner had challenged the said order by filing a criminal revision, being Cr. Rev. No.413 of 2001, before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, which stood dismissed. It may be noted that the final order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the year 2001. The order of the SDM was then challenged before this Court in Cr. Misc. No.28172 of 2006, which was dismissed by this Court on 28th August, 2009, clearly pointing out that the order of the year 2001, which had attained finality in respect of a proceeding initiated in the year 1987, could not be challenged so late. Thereafter, on 05.12.2009 with reference to the said criminal revision order passed by this Court not entertaining the challenge against the final order passed in 2001, petitioner was noticed to remove his encroachment, he came to this Court this time vide C.W.J.C. No.18420 of 2009 and this Court directed the petitioner to first approach the Collector, Bhagalpur in the matter. It may be noted here that the petitioner’s contentions is that these lands are the raiyati lands, there cannot be an - 3 - encroachment thereon and, he cannot be divested of right, title and interest by public at large. It may be noted that the petitioner was aware of these allegations against him, but he took no steps to establish his right, title and interest in Civil Court. He now wants the matter to be reopened by challenging the order of the Collector. In my view, that is not permissible. The order passed in the original proceedings was passed in the year 2001, which has attained finality. It is an order passed under Code of Criminal Procedure over which even the Collector has no appellate or revisional authority. The proper remedy of petitioner was to file a civil suit and establish his right, title and interest, which he chose to litigate and delay the matter. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. The writ petition is dismissed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)