MEERA SHUKLA Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE called out. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties 5 to 12 though counter affidavit on their behalf has been filed and the same is on record. Hence heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4 as well as learned AGA.

(2.) BY means of the present petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the opposite party no. 1, Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 351 of 2006 and also the order dated 27.9.2006 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, IVth, Lucknow in Case No. 7/7/7/7/11/12/2005 -06 under section 133 Cr.P.C. as well as the conditional order dated 16.2.1995.

(3.) BRIEF facts for deciding this petition are that petitioners and opposite parties 4 to 12 are the members of Navneet Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited (herein after referred to as the ''Society'), which is a registered society under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioners have been allotted a plot having no. 10 by the society. They built up a house over the said plot. Opposite parties 4 to 11 moved a complaint on 24.1.1994 before the Additional City Magistrate (Trans Gomati), Lucknow alleging therein that petitioners and opposite party no. 12 have raised unauthorised constructions on the road which was a thoroughfare. The said construction is causing inconvenience to the complainants. The Magistrate called for a report from the police. In pursuance thereof the police submitted report stating therein that petitioners and opposite party no. 12 have raised illegal construction over thoroughfare. The Magistrate passed conditional order dated 16.2.1995 in exercise of the power conferred under section 133 Cr.P.C. directing the parties to remove the unauthorised construction over the land in dispute by 8.3.1995 or to show cause as to why the said unauthorised construction may not be removed by making the order absolute. The petitioners and opposite party no. 12 filed objections against the said conditional order stating therein that the land in dispute was the land of the cooperative society and not of a public land, hence the complaint is misconceived and the dispute could be resolved in terms of provisions of section 70 of the Act, through Arbitration proceeding and the alleged construction was made by them with due consent and permission of the cooperative society more than 12 years ago. The Additional City Magistrate -IVth, Lucknow vide its order dated 27.9.2006 has made absolute the conditional order dated 16.2.1995. This order has been passed under section 133 Cr.P.C. holding that the disputed land is a public way and petitioners and opposite party no.12 have made unauthorised construction over the land in dispute and are creating nuisance to public.