RAMLAL Vs. DHARAM VIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against order dated 13/10/1997"passed by the court of Ms.I.K.Kochhar, ASJ, New Delhi dismissing the revision petition, against the conditional order dated l 5/07/1997, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short 'SDM'), directing petitioners to remove the obstruction/blockage on the public passage (path) within seven days. The matter was kept pending for final decision on merits, after the detailed enquiry, Briefly stated the facts are; that Dharambir (respondent No.1) lodged the complaint under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code alleging that petitioner Ram Lal and his son Braham Singh, were erecting pillars, on 32 feet wide public passage,situated in Khasra Nos.41 & 42 of Village Bhatti which leads to their farm house in Khasra No.890/900/901/902/909/913/916 of Village Fatehpur Beri, and that they were trying to encroach upon the public passage by putting an iron grill gate and by pucca wall.

(2.) Report from the SHO of the area and Patwari was called. Notice was issued to the petitioners. S.I.Balram of P.S.Mehrauli, in his report submitted that the passage (path) in Khasra No.41 beyond Khasra No,42, in the same lane was blocked by the petitioners by iron grill gate and newly erected pucca wall. The report of the "Halka Patwari" also showed that it was a public passage before the obstruction was put by the petitioners. It was also noticed that in the earlier suits (Suit No.900/92 titled Amrit Lal v. Kashmiri Lal and Suit No.274/91 Ramlal v. Kashmiri Lal). the petitioners had themselves pleaded existence of the passage and that in 1994-95 also status quo orders passed by the SDM Hauz Khas showed that the area in dispute was the passage (path). On the basis of the above material, conditional order of removal of blockage was passed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the courts below failed to take into consideration two reports of Local Commissioners appointed in civil suits, which go to show that there was no passage (path) in Khasra No.42 and that the intention of the respondent was to encroach upon the land of the petitioners; and the revenue record submitted by the respondent was forged and fabricated inasmuch as the word "road" was introduced in the revenue record later on illegally, and unauthorisedly and even the "akshajara" and the "Khasra Girdawari" show that there was no path or passage through Khasra No.42.