LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-14

RANJIT SINGH Vs. BHUP SINGH

Decided On February 28, 1996
RANJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
BHUP SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ranjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the order dated 30-11-1994 (Annexure P. 1), passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hissar, under Section 138 of the Code and the order dated 14-8-1995 (Annexure P. 2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, whereby the order (Annexure P. 1) has been affirmed in revision.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Bhup Singh, respondent therein, moved an application under Section 133 of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hissar, stating therein that he had been allotted a plot by the Consolidation Department in the year 1956 on which he had constructed his residential house. According to the averments in the application, there is a public thoroughfare in front of his said house which passage is being used by him for approaching his house, the drain water of his house and a drain pass through that lane and falls into the johar as the slant of the lane is towards the johar. It was alleged that Ranjit Singh, the petitioner herein. illegally encroached upon the shamlat land including the thoroughfare in question as a result of which the water collected to the extent of five to six feet due to which the wall of house upto 30 feet to 35 feet had collapsed and the rest of the wall was in danger. It was also mentioned that even earlier in the year 1984 Ranjit Singh had tried to forcibly occupy this public thoroughfare but the Panchayat had got the matter compromised and the encroachment was removed.

(3.) A conditional order under Section 133 of the Code was passed. Ranjit Singh appeared and controverted the allegations made in the application. According to him, there is no public thoroughfare and that his possession over the land in question has been upheld by the Civil Court vide its judgement dated 12-8-1994 and as such the said application was not sustainable in the eyes of law.