Heard Mr.Amrendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal, learned counsel for the State.

2. The prayer of the petitioners in the present writ petition is for quashing the order dated 11.8.2011 passed in Cr. Revision No.64/9 of 2011/2011 by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari confirming the order dated 24.12.2010 passed in Case No.339M of 2001 by the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Pakridayal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are members of a Joint Hindu Family and the petitioner no.1 is its Karta. On 30.11.2007, the petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 5 as also the respondent nos. 10 and 11 purchased the land in question from Jamabandi Raiyat respondent nos. 6 to 8 through registered sale deed appertaining to Khata No.215, Plot No.1853 area 5 Katha 10 Dhurs and Khata No.347 Plot No.1668 area 14 Katha 13 Dhurs. Later on, the respondent nos. 10 and 11 vended their so purchased land to petitioner nos.1 and 5 once again through the registered sale deed. The vendors delivered actual physical possession to the petitioners right after their purchase and the petitioners, in turn, raised a brick built construction thereon with shops in the front inducting tenants and a house in the back residing with their family.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the code”) bearing Case No.623KM of 2008 was initiated with respect to the petitioners’ purchased and possessed land by the learned Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Pakridayal on an application filed by respondent no.5. On notice, the petitioners appeared in the matter and filed their show cause. Finding a brick built construction raised on the land and possessed by the petitioners as per the police report dated 20.12.2008 in the matter, the learned Magistrate dismissed the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code by order dated 18.4.2009.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to the petitioners’ purchase of the land, a proceeding under section 145 of the Code bearing Case No.339M of 2001 had been initiated for the same land by the petitioners’ vendors against the respondent no.5 wherein the possession of the land in question had been duly declared by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pakridayal vide order dated 23.2.2002 in favour of the petitioners’ vendors. However, the respondent no.5 preferred Cr. Revision No.543 of 2005 against the order declaring the possession of the petitioners’ vendors on the land in question. Learned counsel submitted that vide order dated 10.2.2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-4, Motihari, remanded the matter back to the original authority with a direction to have local inspection of the land conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pakridayal and, thereafter, to decide the matter afresh. After remand, the respondent no.5 prayed for petitioners’ addition as the first party interveners in the proceeding under section 145 of the Code pending since before the petitioners’ purchase of the land. The prayer was allowed and the petitioners were made the first party in Case No.339 of 2001. On 9.6.2010, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pakridayal conducted a local inspection of the land in question and thereafter, by order dated 24.12.2010 declared the possession of respondent no.5 on the land in question.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pakridayal in Cr. Revision No.64 of 2011. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari heard the revision application filed on behalf of the petitioners and dismissed the same by order dated 11.8.2011 after holding that the entire proceeding of Case No.339M of 2001 vitiated owing to non-recording of satisfaction ab