JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 228 Nya. dated 22.02.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa (the respondent no.3) whereby the Circle Officer, Bardiha (the respondent no.4) has been deputed as magistrate with direction to get the crops harvested standing over the land appertaining to Khata no. 211/57, plot nos. 443/43 measuring an area of 2.43 acres, plot no. 1716/255 measuring an area of 0.29 acre and plot no. 441/43 measuring an area of 0.22 acre (total 2.94 acres out of 7 acres allegedly declared as the land belonging to “Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar”) of Village- Salga (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) and to deposit the sale proceeds in the district treasury by way of challan with further direction to restrain both the parties from going over the said land. Further prayer has been made for quashing the follow up notice dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4 whereby the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 5 have been restrained from going over the said land. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession over the said land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ancestor of the petitioners namely Dhanpal Mahto reclaimed the land appertaining to aforesaid Khata and plots measuring total area of 07 acres and brought it under cultivation and in the revisional survey operation he was found in possession of the same which would be apparent from the remarks column of the R.S. Record of Rights. It is further submitted that the petitioners have their houses and wells over the part of said land and they have been cultivating the said land on which the wheat crop grown by them is still standing. The private respondent i.e. the respondent no. 5 filed an application on 23.07.2018 in the court of the respondent no. 3 to initiate a proceeding against the petitioners and others under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code over 07 acres of the land under Khata No. 57 Plot Nos. 43 and 255 and to demarcate his share of 3.50 acres by making measurement of the same. The said application was registered as Misc. 3 to initiate a proceeding against the petitioners and others under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code over 07 acres of the land under Khata No. 57 Plot Nos. 43 and 255 and to demarcate his share of 3.50 acres by making measurement of the same. The said application was registered as Misc. Application No. 200 of 2018, however, no proceeding was initiated, rather vide letter no. 436 dated 15.06.2019, a direction was issued by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 4 for demarcation of the land of the respondent no. 5 and pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 4 submitted a report vide letter no. 40 dated 17.02.2021 stating that demarcation of the disputed land was done by the Anchal Amin on 06.06.2020 wherein it was found that both the parties had unauthorisedly encroached the land of ‘Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar’ measuring area of 2.94 acres and it was requested to take action against the petitioners for growing up crop over the said land in order to avoid possibility of violence between the parties. 3. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 3 has passed the impugned order merely on the application of the private respondent and on the report of the respondent no. 4 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The respondent no. 4 is adamant to get the wheat crop of the petitioners harvested and is also putting pressure upon them to remove their residential houses from the said land which have been standing since long. An administrative authority is not vested with the jurisdiction to pass such an order restraining the petitioners from going over the land on which they have their houses and wells as well as have been in continuous possession for more than 70 years as their ancestors being ‘Debhi raiyat’ of the said village reclaimed the barren ‘Gairmajarua Khas land’. As such, occupancy raiyati right also accrues in favour of the petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the State Government cannot claim its ownership over the property merely on ground that the land is recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Khas’ without getting it adjudicated by a competent civil court moreso when the petitioners/their ancestors have been in possession thereof for a considerable period. 4. It is further submitted that the State Government cannot claim its ownership over the property merely on ground that the land is recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Khas’ without getting it adjudicated by a competent civil court moreso when the petitioners/their ancestors have been in possession thereof for a considerable period. The respondent no.3 has failed to appreciate that though the said land is recorded in the name of ‘Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar,’ however, the ancestors of the petitioners have been shown in possession of the said land in the remarks column of R.S. Khatiyan. The respondent authorities have further failed to appreciate that if a settled raiyat of village reclaims barren land and is in cultivation of the same for continuous 12 years, he acquires the right of occupancy and in such situation, the only duty of the State authorities is to assess the rent of such land in favour of the said raiyat. It is further submitted that there are wells over the said land which were dug and constructed under government scheme. 5. Mr. N.S. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, submits that the respondent no.5 along with other co-sharers is the rightful owner of 50% of the land in question. The said land is recorded in the name of Dirpal Yadav and Dhanpal Yadav who used to pay rent and got the rent receipts issued by the State. It is further submitted that both the petitioners and the respondent no. 5 have got their houses and cultivation over the said land. Since, the petitioners were trying to grab the share of the respondent no. 5, he filed Misc. Case No. 200 of 2018 to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., however the said proceeding was dropped. The respondent no. 5 filed another case being Misc. Case No. 212 of 2018 to initiate proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of vide order dated 06.07.2018 holding that the petitioners had constructed a house over the land in question and since the dispute was in relation to partition, the parties should either get the said land demarcated from concerned circle office or to approach the competent court for resolving the dispute of partition. It is thus submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the respondent authorities are bound to exercise their power and jurisdiction within the ambit as conferred under the law. It is thus submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the respondent authorities are bound to exercise their power and jurisdiction within the ambit as conferred under the law. Even otherwise, the State respondents cannot evict a trespasser without following due process of law. 6. Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C.-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, submits that a petition to initiate a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent no. 5 before the respondent no.3 alleging that the petitioners were cultivating the land more than their actual share in total 07 acres of land and they were adamant to forcibly harvest the field which actually belonged to him. Due to said reason, there was apprehension of breach of peace between them. Accordingly, the respondent no. 3 called for a report from the respondent no.4 on the point of ownership and actual state of affairs whereafter the respondent no.3 enquired the matter and found that out of 7 acres of land, 2.94 acres was recorded as “Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar” in the revisional survey record of rights. The respondent no. 3 after measurement of the land, demarcated 2.94 acres of the same, fixed pillar over it and also put a board mentioning that the land belonged to the State of Jharkhand. It is further submitted that the petitioners forcibly cultivated the said public land and the crop was ready to harvest. Hence, the respondent no.3 in order to maintain law and order and also to prevent bloodshed, passed the impugned order. When the respondent no.4 along with police party went to the spot on 23.03.2021 for reaping the crops standing over 2.94 acres of public land, both parties along with their family members attacked the police party and staff of circle office by pelting stones and throwing chilly powder over them for which FIR was lodged against them. It is also submitted that in the recent survey, the said land measuring 2.94 acres is recorded as ‘Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar’ and the persons shown in illegal possession cannot claim the same as their own. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The respondent no. 5 had filed an application under section 144 Cr.P.C vide Misc. Case No. 200 of 2018 before the respondent no. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The respondent no. 5 had filed an application under section 144 Cr.P.C vide Misc. Case No. 200 of 2018 before the respondent no. 3 claiming that the petitioners were trying to disturb his possession over the said land by forcibly cultivating the same more than their actual share due to which there was apprehension of breach of peace. The respondent no.3 called for report from the respondent no.4, who vide letter no. 40 dated 17.02.2021, reported that as per demarcation made by the Anchal Amin, the land measuring area of 2.94 acres was recorded as ‘Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar’ and both the petitioners and the private respondent (the respondent no. 5) were found in illegal possession of the same. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 deputing the respondent no. 4 as magistrate to harvest the crops standing over the said land with a further direction to restrain the parties from going there. Subsequently, the respondent no.4 issued notice dated 24.02.2021 addressing both parties to comply the order of the respondent no. 3. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.3 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as contained in memo no. 228 Nya. dated 22.02.2021 on an application filed by the respondent no. 5 to initiate proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. 10. For better appreciation of the matter, it would be relevant to mention the provisions of Section 144 Cr.P.C., which read as under:- “144. 228 Nya. dated 22.02.2021 on an application filed by the respondent no. 5 to initiate proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. 10. For better appreciation of the matter, it would be relevant to mention the provisions of Section 144 Cr.P.C., which read as under:- “144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.— (1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray. (2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte. (3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area. (4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof: Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification. (5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor- in- office. (6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub- section (4). (7) Where an application under sub- section (5) or sub- section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing. 11. Thus, the power under Section 144 Cr.P.C is exercised for directing any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management for immediate prevention from obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed and for speedy remedy to prevent danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray. The order under Section 144 Cr.P.C remains effective for a period of two months from the date of passing of the order, however by the notification of the State Government, such order shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months. 12. On perusal of the R.S. Record of Rights, it appears that the said land is record as ‘Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar’ and in the remarks column Dhanpal Mahato (ancestor of the petitioners) has been shown in possession thereof. The claim of the petitioners is that their ancestors reclaimed the said land and made it fit for cultivation and thus they are in possession of the said land since long and the state government has also treated them as raiyats by accepting rent from them. The claim of the petitioners is that their ancestors reclaimed the said land and made it fit for cultivation and thus they are in possession of the said land since long and the state government has also treated them as raiyats by accepting rent from them. The petitioners also claim that neither any proceeding in accordance with law was initiated against them for their eviction from the land in question nor opportunity of hearing was provided to them before passing the impugned order and thus the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. The private respondent i.e. the respondent no. 5 has brought on record a copy of order dated 06.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 under Section 144 Cr.P.C in Misc. Case No. 212 of 2018 which was also related to the said land and between the same parties. The respondent no. 3 after going through the materials available on record had observed that the said land was recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Malik’ and was settled in favour of Dirpal Mahto and Dhanpal Mahto. The respondent no. 3 had further held that there was a partition dispute between the parties for the said land and he was not competent to decide the said issue. However, the parties were directed to either get the land demarcated from the circle office or to file partition suit in the competent court of law. Subsequently, the respondent no. 4 submitted his report on 17.02.2021 in Misc. Case No. 200 of 2018 filed on 23.07.2018 i.e. after more than 2 years and on the basis of the said report, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order dated 22.02.2021. 14. This Court is of the view that the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 in exercise of power conferred under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., has exceeded his jurisdiction by restraining the petitioners and the private respondent (the respondent no. 5) from going over the said land as also by confirming the title of the “State” over the same on the basis of report submitted by the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 3 also directed for dispossession of the petitioners and the private respondent from the said land on mere entry made in the record of rights as ‘Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar’ that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to them. 4. The respondent no. 3 also directed for dispossession of the petitioners and the private respondent from the said land on mere entry made in the record of rights as ‘Anabad Jharkhand Sarkar’ that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to them. The petitioners have been in long possession of the said land and as such their eviction without following due process of law is not permissible. 15. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 228 Nya. Dated 22.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 and the consequential notice dated 24.02.2021 issued by the respondent no.4 are hereby quashed. 16. Since, the ancestors of the petitioners have been shown in possession of the land in question in the record of rights, the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed unless an order of eviction is passed by a competent court of civil jurisdiction following due process of law. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.