RAM VINAY PRASAD KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State as well as respondent No. 5 who died during the pendency of the writ application.

(2.) A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated on the application of respondent No. 5 (now dead) on 12.4.2006. During the continuance of the proceeding an application was filed before the Collector, West Champaran, by respondent No. 5 stating therein that the land in question belongs to him and he is in possession of the same. He further prayed that O.P. No. 2 in the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. be restrained from looting his crops. The Collector vide his endorsement dated 12.4.06 on the application of other side gave direction for harvesting of the crops. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Collector the crops were harvested and compliance report was submitted by the Circle Officer on 27.4.2006 to the S.D.O., Bettiah. In the meantime, the S.D.O., Bettia, finding it expedient that proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. is not adequate initiated a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 10.6.2006.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction issued by the Collector dated 12.4.2006 is without jurisdiction as the same was passed without giving hearing to him. Further more as the S.D.M., Bettiah was in seisin of the matter vide proceeding No. 647 M/06 and as such the Collector, Bettiah should have restrained from issuing any order. He further submits that in any view of the matter the petitioner would be entitled for compensation.