IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6 of 2010 Ram Jatan Ishwar, son of Ghirni Ishwar, village Shivwai, PS Cheria Bariyarpur, Dist. Begusarai – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Ajay Kumar Ishwar, son of Late Bishundev Ishwar, 3. Raji Ishwar, 4. Arjun Ishwar, both of village Shiwari, PS cheria Bariyarpur, District Begusarai – opposite parties. 2 28.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 3.12.2009/5.12.2009 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Manjhaul in Case No. 45M of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding was instituted on 12 kathas 18 dhurs and 17 dhurkies of lands pertaining to khata no. 2904, khesra no. 5443. It is submitted that the court has passed orders with respect to more than 2 bighas of land which in fact is not the subject matter of dispute. It is also pointed out by counsel for the petitioner that in fact there is no report showing that there was any urgency with respect to passing an order under section 146 (1) of the Cr.P.C. In this case the Circle Officer has been appointed as the receiver. In the aforesaid facts, without passing any order with respect to the claims of the respective parties regarding 12 kathas 18 dhurs and 17 dhurkies of land, I direct that the Subdivisional Officer, Manjhaul should reconsider the matter. It appears that the actual dispute relates to unidentifiable land which is described above. It appears mot improper to attach the entire chunk as the opposite party has no claim on the entire chunk. Thus, prima facie since the land 2 cannot be identified, it appears that the 1st party is raising a dispute which needs to be examined in its proper prospective. The order, dated 3.12.2009 passed under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. appointing the Circle Officer as a receiver is remanded for reconsideration. The court while passing the order should first call for the report to see whether there any eminent urgency for passing the order. It also appears that no separate petition was filed either on behalf of the 1st party or the 2nd party. The police report is, dated 11.5.2009 and the order was passed on 5.12.2009, that is, after six months which in itself goes to show that there was no urgency in the matter. The court while passing an order may call for a fresh report and after hearing the parties reconsider the entire matter. In the mean time the order, dated 3.12.2009/5.12.2009 shall be kept in abeyance. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)