Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. On behalf of the petitioners a grievance has been raised that although in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC the possession of the petitioner was found in December, 1996 and the private respondent were restrained from interfering with such possession of the petitioner yet the private respondents are disturbing the petitioner in possession and in- spite of representation the district authorities such as District Magistrate, Purnia and the Superintendent of Police of Purnia, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively are not taking adequate steps to enforce rule of law and protect the legal rights of the petitioner flowing from declaration of possession made under Section 145, Cr PC. 3. It is settled law that repeated proceedings under Section 145, Cr PC is not called for and once possession of a party has been declared by a Magistrate and such declaration has attained finality, if the party who has lost again disturbs the possession of the successful party then administration must take preventive action under Section 144 or under Section 107, Cr PC against the law breakers. 4. In view of aforesaid settled law, this Court does not feel any necessity to implead and issue any notice to the alleged law breakers as there is no dispute requiring decision of this Court. The petitioner is given liberty to approach respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Purnia, who shall ensure that law of the land as explained above, is followed and petitioner is not harassed by law breakers contrary to law. 5. The writ application is disposed of.