IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3346 of 2001 1. Bishwanath Prasad Singh, S/o Late Brahmdeo Narain Singh 2. Arun Kumar Singh. 3. Prem Kumar Singh 4. Anil Kumar Singh 5. Sunil Kumar Singh. All sons of Late Ram Lakhan Prasad Singh 6. Chandrabhushan Prasad Singh, S/o of Late Ramdeo Pd. Singh. 7. Madan Mohan Pd. Singh, S/o Late Kapildeo Narain Singh. 8. Bireshwar Pd. Singh, S/o Late Sahdeo Pd. Singh. All are resident of Village-Sadanandpur, Police Station-Balia, District-Begusarai. ……………………………….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Khagaria. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khagaria. 4. The Executive Magistrate, Khagaria. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Khagaria. 6. Officer-In-Charge, Khagaria Police Station, District-Khagaria. ……………………………… Respondent 1st Party. 7. Surendra Paswan, S/o Dhauli Paswan. 8. Dhauli Paswan, S/o Munar Paswan. 9. Babu Saheb Paswan, S/o Ram Chandra Paswan. 10. Mehi Paswan, S/o Chanchal Paswan. 11. Surya Paswan, S/o Dhauli Paswan. 12. Dinesh Paswan, S/o Dhurilal Paswan. 13. Naresh Paswan, S/o Dhurilal Paswan. 14. Ganga Paswan, S/o Bhola Paswan. 15. Ram Ratan Paswan, S/o Jangali Paswan. 16. Uma Paswan, S/o Parmeshwar Paswan. All are resident of Labhgaon, Police Station and District-Khagaria. ……………………………… Respondent 2nd Party 17. Raj Kishore Prasad Singh, S/o Late Ram Kishore Prasad Singh. 18. Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh, S/o Late Baleshwar Pd. Singh. Both residents of Village-Sadanandpur, P.S.-Balia, District-Begusarai. ………………………………… ….. Respondents ----------- 15 20.1.2009 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and counsel for the State. Despite service of notice to the private 2 respondent nos. 7 to 16, no one appears for them. However, counsel for the respondent nos. 17 & 18 supporting the writ petitioners has appeared. The issue involved in this writ application is one which would suggest the systematic failure of the district administration in giving protection to life and property of an ordinary citizen. All that the petitioners in this writ application have prayed is that their possession of land, admittedly belonging to them, should be restored through the machinery of the State inasmuch as the respondents, 2nd set had usurped the same without any authority of law. The writ petitioners in this context have relied on an inter-parte order in a judicial proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the claim of the respondents, 2nd set was negatived and it was held on the fateful day and two months before the drawing of the proceedings, it was the petitioners who were in possession along with respondent nos. 17 & 18 and therefore, they could not be dispossessed till an order is passed to this effect by a Civil Court. Ordinarily, the district administration was supposed to give effect to this interparte order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. but that having been not done for a long period, the petitioners ultimately have moved this Court in this writ application which also has remained 3 pending for a period of almost eight years. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondent Sub-divisional Officer has supported all the facts stated by the petitioners but then in a very interesting manner, in the annexure appended to the counter affidavit, a lame explanation has also been offered that the district administration is helpless because certain proposal for acquisition of the land of the petitioners are pending consideration for last eight years. There can be no quarrel on the proposition of law that the State has its power under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire land for public purpose, but then from the correspondence made by the Government with the Collector, as enclosed with the counter affidavit, it would be clear that the Government is not in a mood to acquire the land for rehabilitation of the private respondent, 2nd set and others rather the Government has asked the Collector of the district to see that if the private respondents are residing on the land for years, why should they be not issued Parcha under Bihar Privileged Persons Home Tenancy Act (B.P.P.H.T. Act). The Collector of the district probably realizing the mode of the B.P.P.H.T. Act has not proceeded with the Parcha proceedings but then a stalemate still continues 4 inasmuch as the respondents, 2nd set without any authority of law and without there being anything for them to remain in possession of the land of the petitioners, are still continuing over them and the persons who are entitled to remain in possession have been knocking the door of this Court and elsewhere. Such stalemate cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period. If the land of the petitioners have to be acquired as was suggested by the district administration that must have done or if the district administration still wants to rehabilitate respondents, 2nd set, it must find land for them anywhere else by making the land of the petitioners free from forcible possession of Respondents 2nd set and/or any other persons. That being so, this Court would dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents, 1st set especially the Collector of Khagaria district to take immediate steps for either restoration of the land of the petitioners and respondent nos. 17 to 18 to them by removing any and every person including Respondent 2nd set within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order or by completing the land acquisition proceedings as sought to be initiated by the Collector of Khagaria in the year, 5 2002 itself in the same period. Such exercise in any event must be completed and a final decision must be taken within the aforesaid period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is finally disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)