JUDGEMENT 1. As noted in the earlier order, the then S.P., Naugachia, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, the S.P., Bhagalpur, who is now in dual charge of Naugachia as well and other officials are present. Private respondent No. 10 is represented. 2. As noted in the earlier order, this case depicted a bizarre state of affairs. Petitioner complains that he was in possession of certain property and living with his family till, on a fine day pursuant to orders of the then S.P., Naugachia with help of Magistrate and police, he was physically evicted and private respondent No. 10, who had recently purchased the property, was put in possession. At the first instance, a counter affidavit was filed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate Bhagalpur. Having examined the records, he took a very fair stand that the entire action, from beginning to end, was contrary to law and in clear defiance of law and he was not able to justify any part thereof. Court found that there was no affidavit on behalf of Superintendent of Police, Naughachia. The matter was adjourned and on the next day, S.P.,Bhagalpur, who was in dual charge of Naugachia, filed a counter affidavit wherein again, it was accepted that actions could not be supported. Though the District Magistrate-cum-Coliector sought apology from the Court, the Superintendent of Police made no such mention. However, in course of hearing, it was mentioned that the then Superintendent of Police, Naugachia had since been transferred so was the Sub-divisional Officer. This Court, in order to fix responsibility, directed the officers to be personally present. They are all personally present today. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the then S.P., Naugachia. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considered the matter, I would first like to clarify that this Court is not deciding the issues of right, title or interest in the property. They are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court. What this Court has to decide is with regard to the possession and dispossession. From the application of respondent No. 10 to the Superintendent of Police, Naugachia, it is absolutely clear that all respondent No. 10 was claiming was that he had purchased the land with the premises in the year, 2008 and in the premises, the petitioner, with his three married daughters, were residing. Having purchased the property, the possession should be given to him. Having purchased the property, the possession should be given to him. This application was filed both before the Collector, Bhagalpur and S.P., Naugachia. The Collector, Bhagalpur rightly ignored the same but S.P., Naugachia endorsed the same to SHO for necessary action instead of ordering the party to approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. This was enough to set the ball rolling and, completing paper formalities, petitioner was physically evicted and possession given to respondent No. 10. It is beyond comprehension as to under what law or authority this was done. It was an abuse of process from beginning to end. 4. However, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bhagalpur assures this Court that possession and status quo ante as existed when the day petitioner was dispossessed would be restored within 48 hours from today subject to petitioner being present. 5. I do not propose to proceed with the matter any further especially keeping in view that the then S.P., Naugachia is a young officer on his first assignment. Thus the writ petition, on the undertaking of the Collector, Bhagalpur, stands disposed of. 6. Needless to mention, it shall be the obligation of the District Administration including any one exercising the power of S.P., Naugachia to ensure safety of petitioner and his family members who has had the courage to take the stand against the entire District Administration. 7. Before parting, I may add that petitioner is entitled to compensation for which he may approach any competent forum or Court including Human Rights Commission, if he is so advised.