JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have moved before this Court for quashing of the:

(i) order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bihar Sharif, (henceforth for short the ‘SDM’) Nalanda in Case No. 1622(M)/2019 by which proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to the “Cr.P.C”) was initiated appertaining to disputed piece of land at Mauza – Chainpura, Thana No. 111, Khata No. 190, Khesra No. 511 (Area 0.80 decimal) situated under his jurisdiction and notices were issued to the petitioners as also the opposite party, Circle Officer, Nalanda and the Government Pleader No. 9 (Annexure-11);

(ii) the order dated 16.01.2020 by which the Opposite Party No. 3 dropped the said proceeding in live with the Section 144 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The case as presented by learned counsel for the petitioners is/are that:-

(i) the disputed plot is under their possession much prior to the cadastral survey;

(ii) however, the Survey Authorities made wrong entry in survey khatian prepared and published on 10.05.2010 as ‘Gair Majarua Aam Gaddha’ (ditch) instead of ‘Gair Majarua Khas’;

(iii) as the original land lord, Syed Md. Gafoor had already died, his heirs submitted a cess return in 1928 with regard to the lands including the disputed one;

(iv) Bibi Kaniz Fatima, who was daughter of Syed Abdul Gafoor came in exclusive possession of the land after the death of her father and the same was settled with the petitioner’s family in 1948 and rent receipts were also granted in their names.

(v) in Rent Receipt No. 3919 of 1943, the father of the petition 1622 er nos. 1 to 4 paid full rents to Bibi Moina Khatoon, who was the daughter of the Most. Bibi Kaniz Fatima;

(vi) Zamiruddin (father of the petitioner nos. 1 to 4) sold half of his land (1.76/1/2) including 0.50 decimals of the disputed land to his full brother Nasiruddin in 1947;

(vii) during the vesting of the Estate in the State of Bihar in 1956-57; Register No. -II was prepared in their names which included the disputed land;

(viii) in 1975, Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated upon the tension relating to draining of water from ditch which was later dropped;

(ix) petitioner nos. 5 & 6 inherited the property from their father Nasiruddin;

(x) in the year 2005, on the basis of police report, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr. P.C. which was later dropped;

(xi) a Title Suit No. 85 of 2005 was preferred by one Ashok Kumar.

(xii) on 13.06.2008, the said Title Suit No. 85 of 2005 was dismissed for default;

(xiii) on 08.11.2019, the petitioner no. 6 started construction of a shop on the said disputed land which was objected by the local people residing there (Annexure-9);

(xiv) the opposite parties, Circle Officer, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda and Station Head Officer (hereinafter referred to ‘the SHO’ Bihar P.S. jointly submitted their report before the Opposite Party No. 3 recommending initiation of Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that the tension that has been created due to illegal construction may result into the untoward incident (Annexure-10).

(xv) the Opposite Party No. 3 after recording the facts relating to the tension that had come in the joint report of the Circle Officer and the ‘the SHO’ initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. after opening the Nalanda Case No. 1622 (M)/2019 (Annexure- 11);

(xvi) the petitioners, who claim to have received the notice belatedly submitted a detailed show cause in the matter stating that the disputed land belongs to them (Annexure-12);

(xvii) the Opposite Party No. 3, ‘the SDM’ took up the matter on 16.01.2020 and finally dropped the proceedings in laying with Section 144 (4) of the Cr.P.C. (Annexure-13);

(xviii) aggrieved the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has preferred.

4. Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the orde