IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 996 of 2001 (Old no. 1384 of 1996) Kanouj Dutta, S/O Jagdish Dutta R/O Sitaram Das Rishikesh Ashram, Muni ki Reti, Rishikesh, Tehri ……….……….Revisionist Versus Brigadier K.S.Verma, Brigade Commander, Military Camp, Raibata, District Dehradun U.P ………………..Respondent Along with Criminal Revision No. 03 of 2000 (Old no. 96 of 1998) Shri Sita Ram Dass Onkar Nath Rishikesh Ashram, Through its Manager, Kanouj Dutta, And joint Manager, Tehri Garhwal. ……….……….Revisionist Versus The Union of India, through Ministry of Defence, through Defence Secretary, South Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi And others ……………………Respondents 2 Shri S.K.Mandal, Advocate, present for the revisionists Shri Vikas Pande, Advocate, present for respondents Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. These two revisions are connected with each other and are being disposed of together. (2) Criminal Revision No. 996 of 2001 (old no. 1384 of 1996) is directed against order-dated 11.07.1996, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narendra Nagar. Criminal Revision No. 03 of 2000 (old no. 96 of 1998) is directed against the order-dated 29.11.1997,passed by the same authority. By both these orders the Magistrate has withdrawn notices issued under section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C). (3) The proceedings in question appear to have been initiated by the revisionists alleging that the respondents have closed the public path which is causing nuisance and as such the same is liable to be removed under section 133 of Cr.P.C. 3 (4) Perusal of the impugned order shows that the alleged path way is a land of Ministry of Defence which is not a public path. (5) Learned counsel for the revisionists argued that on one side of the alleged public path, land is occupied by the Army while on the other side of the path land is in occupation of SSB. However, mere this feature does not make the disputed land a pathway. Merely using a land belonging to Government of India, Ministry of Defence with their permission is a licence to use the land and right of way can not be claimed as of right. The Sub Divisional Magistrate after hearing the respondents have found that the disputed land is part of land owned and possessed by Ministry of Defence Government of India. It is pertinent to mention here that both SSB and Indian Army are units of the Ministry of Defence. (6) Apart from this in its revisional jurisdiction, this court is not inclined to interfere the factual satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the basis of which he has withdrawn the notices issued under section 133 of Cr.P.C., after finding that the land belongs to 4 Government of India. Therefore, both the revisions are dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.10.6.2010 N.P