IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-16808 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.5.2011 Ajit Singh ….Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated March 29th, 2011(Annexure P4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar affirming the order dated June 18th, 2007 (Annexure P2) of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr whereby on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he was directed to remove the encroachment made by him on the passage adjacent to his khasra No.296 situated in Village Bazidpur, Tehsil & District Nawanshahr. The operative part of the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate is reproduced as under: - “The documents came on case file have been perused. According to demarcation report and report of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Aur, the illegal possession is as under follows: - 1) In Khasra No.292-294: On upper side 3 feet 6 inch and on bottom side 3 feet 62 inch, houses are constructed, on 1X18 Karam of Khasra No.428, 1X120 Karam of Khasra No.461, Dalipa son of Sadha is in illegal possession. 2) Khasra No.86 Circular Road 52 feet 6 inch long. On 11 feet width north and 10 feet width south, Khushwinder Singh son of Gian Singh is in illegal possession. 3) Khasra No.296: On the path 4 feet 6 inch on upper portion, 5 feet towards south, Ajit Singh son of Amar Singh is in illegal possession.” Criminal Misc. No. M-16808 of 2011 -2- Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed revision before Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that khasra No.296 is owned and possessed by the petitioner and inspite of that, both the courts below directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment made in the said khasra number. Indeed, khasra No.296 is owned and possessed by the petitioner as is evident from jamabandi (Annexure P11). In sub para No.3 of paragraph No.4 of order (Annexure P2), it has been clearly mentioned that “on the path 4 feet 6 inch on upper portion, 5 feet towards south, Ajit Singh-petitioner is in illegal possession”. With regard to the factual position on the spot, Additional Sessions Judge also observed in his judgment as under: - “Even demarcation report dated 29.9.2005 shows that petitioner has encroached some part of phirni adjoining khasra No.296, which is no doubt ownership of applicant. The learned lower court has not directed the applicant to vacant encroachment in khasra No.296, but it has simply been directed that the petitioner should vacate the part of phirni comprised in khasra No.86, which is adjoining to khasra No.296. As such, impugned order is in conformity with both the report of the Local Commissioners. As such, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.” In view of the above factual position, both the courts below directed to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner on the part of the phirni (circular road) comprised in khasra No.86 and not in khasra No.296. Above being the factual position, no illegality or irregularity is discernible in the impugned judgments. Thus, the revision is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 31.5.2011 Ishwar