- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondents.
(2.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -XVI, Ranchi in Cr. Rev. No.84 of 2006, whereby the revision filed against the order dated 04.01.2006 in the Case No. M -36 of 2004 under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. by the S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi, wherein the petitioners being the second party in the proceeding were directed to remove the encroachment over the road in question, was rejected by the learned revisional Court below. It appears that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between the parties on 17.01.2004 restraining both the parties from going over the land in question. It also appears that by order dated 12.03.2004, the said proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was converted into Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. by learned S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi. The order dated 12.03.2004 reads as follows: - "12.03.04 Pratham Paksh anupasthit. Dwitiya paksh anupasthit. Waad 147 me pariwartit kiya jata hai. Abhilekh ko Sri Anup Sharan ke Nyayalay me bheje. Dinank 18.03.2004 ko upasthit kare. 
(3.) THUS , from the perusal of the order dated 12.03.2004, it is apparent that the Executive Magistrate has not recorded his subjective satisfaction either on the basis of any report of the police officer or upon any information that there was a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace existing between the parties. Without recording any such satisfaction, rather only stating that both the parties were absent, the proceeding was converted into one under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. By the subsequent order dated 04.01.2006, after examining the evidence adduced by both the parties, the court below has directed the petitioners, who were the second party in the proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. to remove the encroachment from the road in question.;