IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36073 of 2008 Ram Ashre Sah, son of Late Algu Sah, village Binaut, PS Rasulpur, Dist. Saran – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Sri Bhagwan Singh, son of Ram Bihari Singh, village Binaut, PS Rasulpur, Dist. Saran – Opp. Parties. 2 18.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This matter has come to this court against the order, dated 30.6.2008 passed in Cr. Revision No. 229/2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC I, Saran by which the court has dismissed the revision application. The case of the petitioner is that Parcha was issued in his favour in respect of the land which was a disputed plot, by virtue of which he has come over possession on the lands in question. Objection was raised by the opposite party regarding the possession of the petitioner who was thrown out in a proceeding under sections 144/145 Cr.P.C. The possession of the opposite party was declared by the Executive Magistrate. The order was challenged by filing Cr. Revision No. 13/2004. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra remanded the matter back to the Executive Magistrate. In the second round the executive Magistrate again passed order in favour of opposite party no.2 which was challenged by filing a revision application. The Additional Sessions Judge while considering the provisions of section 5(1) of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act and the provisions of law under the 2 aforesaid Act came to the conclusion that proper procedure in a case of this nature would be for the petitioner to file an application if he was aggrieved by the acts of the opposite party. A Parcha holder may approach the concerned authority by taking recourse to the provisions under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits, that the Executive Magistrate would not have the jurisdiction over any land which has been settled by the State Government under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. I do not agree with this proposition. If a dispute arises between the parties regarding the possession of land which is also subject matter of the Parhca issued by the State Government, it would be possible for either of the parties to approach the authorities under the aforesaid Act or they may approach the Subdivisional Officer to claim disturbance of possession in a proceeding under section 144 of the Cr.P.C Be that as it may, it would be open to the aggrieved party to move the authorities for redressal of the grievances, if so advised. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)