IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.236 of 2011 BALRAM CHAUDHARY @ BALRAM PRASAD JAISWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that although he is in possession of the land in question, as a matter of act, his ancestors were in possession of the said property for the last more than hundred years, however the respondent nos. 8, 9 & 10 are willing to dispossess the petitioner forcibly by the help of the greedy local authority and the respondent nos. 8, 9 & 19 with their henchmen are threatening the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that in case the petitioner has any grievance that the respondent nos. 8, 9 & 10 with the help of certain police officials are threatening or willing to dispossess the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have taken the appropriate recourse of law against them either under civil or criminal proceeding. Considering the submissions of the parties, since the claim of the petitioner is that he is in physical possession of the land in question and respondent nos. 8, 9 & 10 are willing to dispossess him, in order to restrain the aforesaid respondents from dispossessing him, petitioner ought to have taken the appropriate recourse of law by restraining them by a lawful order and in case the possession of the petitioner has been declared in a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. and in case the respondent nos. 8, 9 & 10 violates the order, it will be open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the concerned authority for taking suitable action in the matter. The writ application accordingly stands disposed of. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)