SANJIV KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) IN this case, petitioners obtained settlement of lands for the purpose of cultivation under the orders of Subdivisional Magistrate, Manjhaul in course of a proceeding under Sections 145 and 146(1), Cr. P.C. Their grievance is that after taking the settlement, they paid the bid amount and thereafter, made a request for deputation of a Magistrate and police force so that the cultivation work may be conducted without interference by anti -social elements. It appears that by order contained in Annexure -4, the Subdivisional Magistrate deputed Anchal Adhikari, Khodawandpur to act as Magistrate and he was also directed to obtain necessary police force from the Officer Incharge of Khodawandpur Police Station. It appears from a letter bearing No. 24 dated 29 -1 -1999 contained in Annexure 9, which has been issued by Anchal Adhikari, Khodawandpur to Sub -divisional Magistrate, Manjhaul that he received some telephonic message and acting on that basis, the police force deputed with regard to the cultivation of lands settled with the petitioners had been returned back and the entire work had been stayed. Petitioners have in particular challenged the entire action as evidenced by Annexure -9 on the ground that such action on the basis of administrative orders on telephone amounts to interfering with and disregarding quasi judicial order passed by competent authority as contained in Annexure -4.

(3.) THE issues arising in this case are indeed complex inasmuch as it may arise for determination as to what is the duty of police district administration vis -a -vis right of citizens to enjoy their property rights such as cultivation of lands to which the citizens may be entitled in law. In my view, the attitude adopted by the respondents will only amount to shirking their legal responsibilities but. this is only a tentative view because at times other interests may have overriding effects. I am not going further into this case because admittedly, the period of settlement made with the petitioner has expired and hence, in my view it would be futile to go into this aspect of the controversy only for shake for academic discussion.