IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8094 of 2003 RAJ NANDAN SINGH YADAV son of Sri Raghunath Yadav @ Raghunath Singh, resident of village Chaurahi Tola, Jadu Bigha, Police Stattion Haspura, District- Aurangabad…. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Daudnagar, Aurangabad 5. The Circle Officer, Haspura, Aurangabad 6. The Officer-in-charge, Haspura Police Station, District- Aurangabad 7. Harinandan Singh, son of Chandradip Singh, resident of village Chaurahi Tola Jadu Bigha, Police Station Haspsura, District- Aurangabad…. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Bindyachal Singh,Advocate Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, S.C.V For Respondent No.7:Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Bharti, Advocate ---- 7. 1.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.7. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in memo No.271 dated 5.7.2003 issued by the Circle Officer, Haspura, by which he had requested the Officer-in-charge of Haspura Police Station to provide him sufficient force to enable him to make measurement of different plots enumerated therein and give delivery of possession to the concerned person. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not open to the revenue authorities to deliver possession from one party to the other on their own by making - 2 - measurement of the land in question without any order of a competent court of law. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, the Block Development Officer, Haspura, District- Aurangabad, it is stated that the State has not delivered the possession of land to any party, rather the land has been measured by the Anchal Amin, Haspura and the police force was used only for maintaining law and order during the said measurement. It is further asserted that no delivery of possession has been made by the State to respondent No.7 or any one else. It is evident that in case there is dispute between the parties regarding the possession of land, it is only the competent court of law which can direct possession in favour of one or the other party or decide the dispute with respect to their title. Even under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only the factum of actual possession can be decided. It is not open to the revenue authorities to enter the said domain. The question of measurement of land can only arise where there is no dispute with regard to possession and only boundaries of particular plot numbers have to be demarcated. - 3 - In view of the statements made in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that no further order is required to be passed for setting aside Annexure-5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the concerned parties to approach the competent forum for redressal of their grievances. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )