IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2882 of 2008 1. RAM LALIT PRASAD SINGH @ KUN KUN SINGH S/o Late Sahadeo Singh, 2. Prakash Kumar Singh @ Jay Prakash Singh, S/o Ram Lalit Prasad Singh Both are resident of Bhagwanpur, I.G. Colony, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gopal Prasad Singh, S/o Late Sahadeo Singh, R/o Bhagwanpur, I.G. Colony, Ward No. 6, P.S.-Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. ----------- 6. 09-09-2010 Heard both the sides. Petitioners assail order dated 14-08-2006. Petitioners and opposite party are full brothers. There appears to be a dispute relating to possession of a particular piece of land that led to initiation of 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding. By order dated 14-08-2006, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate found that both the parties are laying claim over the land and as such there is apprehension of breach of piece relating to the disputed land on which possessions are being asserted by both the parties. Consequently, the proceeding was converted into one under section 145 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the aforesaid order, submits that there is admission of O.P. No. 2 that the disputed land falls in the share of 2nd party to the proceeding (petitioner herein). It is thus contended that in view of the aforesaid admission the initiation of proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. is bad in law. It appears, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 189 of 2006 (Ram 2 Lalit Pd. Singh @ Kun Kun Singh & Another Vs. The State of Bihar & Another). Learned Revisional Court on a consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties came to the following conclusion as would appear from Paragraph 3, which is extracted hereinbelow: “ It also appears from order dated 20-6- 06 and 14-8-06 that learned S.D.M. has mentioned whole 1 ½ Kathas of land belonging to father of both parties as disputed land though it is a fact that on that very land four brothers have constructed their respective houses. As per Section 145 Cr.P.C.(5) it is open for learned magistrate to cancel his order after hearing both parties. It is also clear that present O.P. 2nd party Gopal Pd. Singh in his show cause filed in the present case as well as filed in the court of S.D.M has clearly mentioned that the dispute is with regard to 1’ x 58’ of land situated in the west of his house which was left by him for ventilation purpose whereas present revisionist claimed that land to be in his possession. Certainly that land is open land and it is competent for the court of S.D.M. to look into possession matter of that very land after proper amendment in his order u/s 145 Cr.P.C. Since it is open land between the houses of both parties relying 2001(3) PLJR 471 does not appear to apply here. Both parties are claiming exclusive possession over it so Section 145 Cr.P.C. will apply.” This court is not inclined to interfere with the orders. It is accordingly, dismissed. Sujit (Kishore K.Mandal,J.)