IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17076 of 2010 AJAY KUMAR ISHWAR, SON OF LATE BISHANDEW ISHWAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHEURI, P.S. CHERIA BARIARPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM JATAN ISHWAR, SON OF GHIRAL ISHWAR 3. RAJU ISHWAR, SON OF GHIRAL ISHWAR 4. ARJUN ISHWAR, SON OF GHIRAL ISHWAR ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHEURI, P.S. CHERIA BARIARPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ----- OPP. PARTIES ----------- 5 3.11.2010 This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 28.1.2010. This Court had directed by order dated 28.1.2010 that the order attaching the property shall be kept in abeyance. Learned counsel for the petitioner had disputed the area of the land which was subject matter of the 146 proceeding and subsequent order passed appointing the Circle Officer as receiver of the said land. The S.D.O. had auction sold the land on 9.1.2009. An intervention application has been filed by the auction purchaser who has categorically stated that he could not come in possession of the entire lands. Subsequently, counsel for the petitioner also placed before this court the certified copy of the order dated 20.2.2010 by which the S.D.O. has stayed all earlier 2 action taken by him in pursuance of the order dated 3.12.2009/5.12.2009. In the circumstances aforesaid, the earlier order does not require any review or modification. The parties are directed to appear before the S.D.O. I may clarify one aspect of the matter. The lands which are in dispute are lands which have emerged from the river (Gandak). It is submitted on behalf of the first party that the area of lands which emerge from the river Gandak from time to time, are identifiable plots, it is misnomer to conclude that the lands are unidentified. In any view of the matter, the issue should be decided by the S.D.O. within a period of three months. The petitioner (first party) and the opposite party (second party) are directed to co-operate with the S.D.O. and not pray for unnecessary time. On behalf of the auction purchaser, it has been submitted that he made an application that his money should be returned in view of the fact that the S.D.O. has stayed the auction purchase. In my opinion, the claim of the auction purchaser 3 is quite legitimate as he is no longer in possession of the lands and infact cannot reap any benefit from the lands in question. This modification application is thus, disposed of. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)