AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P.
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 01.11.2014
passed in Cr. Rev. No. 04/12 by which the learned Ad hoc Additional
Sessions Judge 1st, East Champaran has upheld the order dated
13.07.2011 passed in Case No. 121M/07 by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Areraj.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially
vide Annexure-1 to the present application a proceeding U/S 133
Cr.P.C . was initiated on the allegation that some portions of Plot No.
3870 from the Southern part have been encroached upon and, on
asking to remove such encroachments, the second party is bent upon
entering into unlawful act of assault and abuse. According to him,
while the proceeding was initiated against Plot No. 3870, in course of
inquiry an inquiry report was submitted showing that the
encroachment is on Plot No. 3844 under Khata No. 684 measuring an
area 0.02 dismals. On receipt of the said inquiry report, the Sub
Divisional Magistrate passed order dated 13.07.2011 in which Plot
No. 3844/1 under Khata No. 684 has been mentioned as the
encroached land and, accordingly, direction was issued to remove the
encroachments from the said land.
The learned Revisional Court considered the grievance
of the petitioners and upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate. It has been found that so far as the encroached land is
concerned, it is Khesra No. 3844.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has no serious
argument to assail the order save and except to say that when
Annexure-2 was passed, the petitioners were not heard.
Learned A.P.P. submits that so far as Annexure-2 is
concerned, it is a mere correction of Plot No., that too, based on the
inquiry report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari in which the correct
Plot No. of the land, on which encroachments were made, was
mentioned. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records. Contention of the learned A.P.P. for the State is correct
inasmuch as it appears from Annexure-2 that it is in fact a correction
of the Plot No. with respect to which the action for removal of
encroachments was to be taken. This was challenged by the
petitioners in revision but, on merit, the petitioners have failed to
show that the land bearing Plot No. 3844 is not a Gairmajarua land
and, if it is so, I fail to understand as to how the petitioners may
challenge any action taken by the State authorities for removal of
encroachments from a Gairmajarua land.
This application has no merit. It is accordingly
dismissed.