SURENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE submissions of the present petitioner in writ application are that after some agreement between the parties, the petitioner came in possession of the property and started business there.

(3.) ON a notice State appeared through the Government Counsel and the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate has filed his affidavit inter alia submitting that as the property was settled by the authorities in favour of the private respondent and as the present petitioner has no right, title or interest in the property and as he had already put a lock over the property, the action taken by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate was justified.