- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 7-1-2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur whereby, the Block Statistical Supervisor, Pakur was directed to ensure law and order, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) A proceeding vide Cr. Misc. Case No.357 of 2014 was instituted at the instance of one Dharmendar Singh against the petitioner and others. In the proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C. the petitioner and others filed their show-cause reply. After considering the reply filed on behalf of the opposite-parties, order dated 12-2-2015 in favour of the first-party was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur. It is recorded in order dated 12-2-2015 that the scheduled land is the only path for inlet and outlet to the house of the first party and it was being used by them since so many years. It was found that to the east of the "Gali", a wall has been constructed by the opposite party without any window or door. Though, they asserted that they own 1 1/2 feet land in the said "Gali", they failed to produce any document to prove that they have possession over the ScheduleA land. Accordingly, the proceeding was vacated in favour of the first party and it was made absolute against the opposite-parties.
(3.) Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 7-1-2015, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur has directed the Superintendent of Police to provide police force for which, the Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel has submitted that in the garb of order dated 7-1-2015, a "Gundaraj" is being run by the administrators. When the Court objected to use of such words without any foundation, the learned senior counsel vehemently retorted that he is entitled to make such submission. It is further submitted that by providing police force, the respondent-authorities have permitted the private respondents to encroach upon the land of the petitioner. Referring to Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that behind the back of the petitioner, the entire proceeding was initiated. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur is not exercising power of the civil court and therefore, he could not have passed order dated 7-1-2015.;