Crl. Misc. No. M-29635 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-29635 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.9.2011 Naib Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate Patiala & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning the proceedings, Annexure P-2, whereby demarcation/possession of the land comprising in Khasra No.207/2 and 216 at village Lang has been directed by the revenue authorities in execution of order Annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order, Annexure P-3 was passed in respect of land comprising in Khasra Nos. 207/2 (5-0) and 216 (3-0) at village Lang. The plot of the petitioner does not fall within the said land, yet the authorities are making effort to demolish the same. This is despite the fact that an injunction suit was preferred by the petitioner wherein injunction was granted. Even said order is not being respected by the authorities. Thus, the petitioner has no remedy but to seek intervention of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of order, Annexure P-3, shows that an application Crl. Misc. No. M-29635 of 2011 2 under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was moved by one Harminder Singh stating therein that the land comprising in Khasra Nos.207/2 (5-0) and 216 (3-0) is Jumla Malkan land. There is a passage in the same which is being used by residents of the village. However, same was illegally occupied by respondents No.1 to 6 (in petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C.) by raising illegal construction. The petitioner in that case thereafter, moved various representations but to no avail. Thus, he preferred petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C. After hearing the parties, Sub Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was a passage existing in the said land and persons in illegal possession of same, needed to be removed. Neither name of the petitioner figures in the said order nor he is a party to the same. Admittedly, even the land/ plot of the petitioner does not fall in Khasra Nos.207/2 and 216 as mentioned in impugned order. The proceedings, Annexure P-2 also appear to have been taken in respect of the land mentioned in order passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. It is, thus, inexplicable how any cause of action arises to the petitioner. This apart, he has already filed a civil suit wherein injunction has been granted by the competent court of jurisdiction. Thus, no interference is called for in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of any other remedy permissible in law. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 28.9.2011 'rajpal'