1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1751 OF 2011 Shivaji s/o. Kashinath Kaware ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for applicant. Mr.B.J. Sonawane, APP for respondent. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 7th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No. 7/2011 registered with Umerga Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad for offences under sections 166, 167, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. One Vimalbai More had filed a private complaint for above offences and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has passed order under section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. The record of investigation was made available for perusal. The applicant has also produced the copies of the relevant record. Both the sides are heard. Even the 7/12 extract was shown to the Court today by the advocate of the applicant. No notice was given to the complainant. 2 3. The owner of the land Survey No. 75/1/1 situated at Jagdalewadi, Tahsil Umerga, Dist. Osmanabad had applied to TILR for measurement of the land as she thinks that the adjacent owners have committed encroachment on her land. The present applicant was appointed as surveyor to do the measurement. The owner of the land has grievance that the present applicant has intentionally avoided to show the encroachment. Two maps prepared by the present applicant are produced in the present proceedings. In one map, which was initially prepared by the applicant, one road was shown on south side of the portion of the land of the complainant. In the second map, the same road was shown on north side of the portion of the land of the complainant. Maps of survey No. 75 prepared in general survey is also produced and it shows that on four sides of this land there are survey Nos. 61, 74, 78 and 76. No road is shown inside the survey No. 75 or adjacent to survey No. 75. The advocate of the applicant drew the attention of the Court to one correspondence made by the applicant to the office. In the correspondence the applicant had expressed difficulty for showing measurement and boundaries in the map, as according to him, the original record of division of this survey was not available. It is surprising that when in revenue record there is such division and the applicant actually went to the spot to take the measurement, he has started to say that the original record of division is not available. The advocate of the applicant submitted that if the owner of the land has any 3 grievance, she can challenge the measurement before the higher authority. For correction of record that step can be taken, but when there are allegations that Government Officer is mischievously avoiding to show the encroachment, some action for creation of false record can also be taken. When total area of land of owner is shown as 2.51 H. in revenue record, in the measurement taken by the applicant, the area is shown as 1.32 H. In spite of that he has avoided to show the encroachment, if any, made by the adjacent land holder. The matter is with police. In the aforesaid circumstances, the matter needs to be throughly investigated. Such incidents cannot be taken lightly. So the application stands rejected. 4. The advocate of the applicant seeks for one week's protection. But, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, such protection cannot be given. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln1751.11