D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE present revision application has been preferred by the petitioner Sachidanand Singh and others against the order dated 27.10.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur Equivalent Citation:2007 -JCR -4 -485 in Misc. Case No. 734(A)/2004 under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. by which the petitioners have been directed to remove obstruction from the plot in the proceeding.
(2.) THE learned SDM, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur initiated a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on the report of Circle Officer, Jamshedpur on a petition filed by the private opposite parties on 5.7.2004 that the petitioners were trying to encroach upon the land in question described in the schedule situated in Mauza Ghorabandh Khata No. 45, Plot No. 128 and 129, 3x30" drain through which the drainage water of the opposite party and other Mohall people used to flow on the next part plot No. 115 and 133 which belongs to Adavasi. The petitioners appeared on notice and filed show cause in which they denied all the allegations and claimed that the land lying vacant, adjacent to their boundary wall was coming in their possession for last 35 years. A question was also raised that the land in question was not public land. Therefore the proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. The learned trial court after examining the witnesses and going through the documents brought on record by both sides came to conclusion that the petitioners were trying to obstruct drainage water going on the public land resulting in water logging and pollution of the area resulting in public nuisance. This revision was preferred on the grounds that the learned court blow has exceeded its jurisdiction by initiating the proceeding itself.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioners the impugned order dated 27.10.2006 was liable to be set aside on the grounds that there was private dispute between the parties and the learned SDM has no jurisdiction to decide such dispute under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C. As such the impugned order be set aside. In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 1995 (Supp. 4) 54, in which the Hon ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that civil dispute cannot be subjected for decision under Sec. 133 Cr.P.C.;