JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 2. The Petitioners are accused in this case. The complaint was filed for offences under Sections 3(iv), 3(v) and 2(xv) of the S.C. & S.T. Act. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the lands in question was settled in favor of her husband Suren Rai and her husbands brother Satai Rai vide Settlement Case No. 40 of 1976-77. The said settlement was made by the Circle Officer, Balrampur. She claims that she had built her house (hut) on the said lands and had also planted some trees. The allegation is that when she was returning to her village on 10.9.2004, she was told by Basu Yadav that she should not enter the house, as this land had already been sold by her husband to the Petitioners and as such she had no right over the said land. The lady complained to the Mukhiya but to no effect. In the S.A. the complainant had stated that she had gone to her parents house and when she came back she was told that the lands were occupied by the Petitioners. She claims that there is hut on the land and, she comes and goes to her house. The Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the matter for enquiry to the police and a report was submitted stating therein that the case instituted was false as the complainant was not in possession of the lands in question. It is also claimed that in the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the lands in question had been sold by Kebala No. 6254 and 5229 by the husband of the complainant in the year 1977-79 to Basu Yadav and Fajlu Rahman. 3. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that he has produced a certificate by the Anchaladhikari that the lands were settled in favor of the husband of the complainant vide Case No. 40 of 1976-77, on the other hand it is also apparent that the Petitioners had purchased the land after the settlement, from the husband of the complainant late Suren Rai. The title of the land had changed hands and the complainant cannot succeed in showing that she has prima facie title to the lands, unless she challenges the sale deed. 4. The title of the land had changed hands and the complainant cannot succeed in showing that she has prima facie title to the lands, unless she challenges the sale deed. 4. In the circumstances, this is not a case which would come under the purview of S.C./S.T. Act which envisages that a person who forces or causes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of residence, he or she would be liable for offences under Sections 3(iv), 3(v) and 2(xv) of the S.C. & S.T. Act. 5. I, therefore, find that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar dated 4.4.2009 and the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Katihar dated 5.1.2006 remanding the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar is not justified in the facts of this particular case and is quashed as no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners. 6. This application is thus, allowed.