SUBODH NARAIN JHA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sujeet Kumar Gupta, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deo Narayan Yadav, AAG 6 representing the State. No one appears for the private respondents 4 and 5.

(2.) THE petitioners primarily seek to challenge the order dated 19.9.1979 passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Sadar. Madhubani in Case No. C 190/79. A copy of the order is at Annexure -2. By this order the Subdivisional Officer directed the petitioners, who were Opposite party before him, to hand over possession of certain agricultural land to respondents 4 and 5 (the applicant before the Subdivisional Officer). Also coming under challenge are the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Madhubani and the D.C.L.R., Madhubani by which the petitioners ' appeal against the order of the Subdivisional Officer was disallowed on the plea that it was an administrative order.

(3.) MR . Yadav was unable to show any provision of law that would justify the Subdivisional Officer to pass such an order. The order cannot be sustained even on the plea that it was passed in administrative exigency. The law is very clear that any dispute in regard to title and possession over an immovable property, agricultural land in this case, can only be adjudicated on by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.