IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43137 of 2010 1. BHARAT YADAV, S/O Late Jagarnath Yadav 2. Raghunath Yadav, S/O Jagarnath Yadav 3. Sukhan Kamkar, S/O Late Lallu Kamkar 4. Bishram Yadav @ Vijay Yadav, S/O Sihadi Yadav 5. Ramashish Yadav S/O Radha Mohan Yadav 6. Achhay Kumar Thakur, S/O Brij Bihari Thakur. 7. Shri Kishun Gond, S/O Late Dashrath Gond 8. Mukhdeo Kamkar, S/O Ramayan Kamkar 9. Sukhdeo Kamkar, S/O Ramayan Kamkar 10. Radheshyam Gond, S/O Sri Naya Gond 11. Awadhesh Kamkar, S/O Motilal Kamkar 12. Gorakh Gond, S/O Chhotelal Gond. 13. Bharat Yadav, S/O Bhajan Yadav. 14. Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Thakur, S/O Baliram Thakur 15. Amipad Ram @ Amir Chand Ram, S/O Late Chandrika Ram 16. Sri Ram Kamkar, S/O Sri Lallu Kamkar 17. Motilal @ Motilal Kamkar, S/O Nawmi Kamkar All residents of village Gangauli, P.S. Simri, District- Buxar. ----------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Murli Prasad Son of Sudama Sah, resident of Village- Gangauli (Ram Das Rai Ka Dera O.P.) P.S. Simri, District- Buxar. -----------Opposite parties For the Petitioner:- Mr. Nil Kamal, Advocate For the Opposite Party:- Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Mr. U. L. Verma, APP ------------------- 2. 21.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. It is submitted that there is 144 and 145 proceeding with respect to piece of land for which the petitioners claims a right. The petitioners along with several villagers went to the place of occurrence and removed pillars, iron sheet and logs of wood. Learned counsel for the informant 2 submits that the land is in possession of the informant and the petitioner had no right to go on the land and remove the articles described above. They ought to have awaited the decision to be taken by the S.D.O. under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure before encroaching on the land of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the other hand submits that even if the allegation are treated to be true, it would not be a case of robbery where persons under the bona fide believe that they have some right on the land in question were removing the encroachment. This aspect of the matter only is to thrashed out in Civil Court or in the 145 proceeding and there no reason for this Court to interfere with the order impugned. This application is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)