1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 488 OF 1996 1 Mansukhlal M. Mutha, Age : about 70 years, Occ : Businessman, R/o Maniknagar, Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar-414 001. 2. Sharad Mansukhalal Mutha, Aged about 46 years, Occ : Businessman, R/o 83, Maniknagar, Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar- 414 001. ..PETITIONERS - VERSUS - 1 The State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Through Government Pleader, High Court Building, Aurangabad. 2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Division, Nagar, Ahmednagar. 3. The Thasildar, Ahmednagar. ..RESPONDENTS Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for petitioners Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1426 OF 1996 1 The State of Maharashtra 2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Division, Nagar, Ahmednagar. 3. The Thasildar, Ahmednagar. ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- 2 1 Mansukhlal Manakchand Mutha, Age : Major, Occ : Businessman and agri., 2. Sharad Mansukhalal Mutha, Aged Major, Occ : Businessman and agri, Both R/o 83, Maniknagar, Pune Road, Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for applicants Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for respondents CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 4th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 Both these proceedings can be disposed of by this common order. They arise from the Judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 526 of 1995. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar had initiated the proceedings under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners in Writ Petition No.488/1996 (Henceforth it is referred to as ‘the petitioners’). The notices were issued against them. It was alleged that they had made encroachment on river bed of Sina river which flows through Ahmednagar town. Admittedly, the petitioners had their property Survey No.29 adjacent to Sina River and it was alleged that the petitioners were making encroachment in the river bed from their property Survey No.29. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer after hearing the petitioners passed order on 27th October, 3 1995 directing removal of the encroachment made by the petitioners in the river bed. 2. The petitioners challenged this order before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar by filing Criminal Revision No. 522 of 1995. The learned Judge allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 16th July, 1996. Both the petitioners on one hand and State on the other challenged the correctness of this order by filing these proceedings. 3. During pendency of this proceedings, the State on its own reinspected the site in question on 18th September, 2010 and found that the petitioners have not made encroachment beyond their land Survey No. 29 either in adjoining river bed or elsewhere. The report to that effect is brought on record and is marked as Exhibit `A’. 4. In view of this, the entire litigation should come to an end. It is required now that the impugned order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer dated 27.10.1995 deserves to be set aside. If that order is set aside, nothing survives in the revision that was filed against the said order. The Writ Petition thus succeeds. Both the impugned orders dated 27.10.1995 and 16.07.1996 stand set aside. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code stand quashed. In view of this, the Criminal Application filed by the State stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] gas/criwp488.96/ok