The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence and procedural compliance before passing orders under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to remove public nuisances.

1. The petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Section 435 read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. against order No.587-93/DMJ/10 dated 16.08.2010 passed by the respondent in terms of Section 133 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners-in-possession of the land bearing khasra Nos.122, 123 and 124 measuring 05 kanals in total, situated at village Chak Jallo, Tehsil and District Jammu. It is stated that petitioners No. 1 and 2 by virtue of sale deed dated 02.09.1983, which was registered on the same date, have purchased land bearing khasra No.122 measuring 01 kanal and 07 marlas, and khasra No. 123 measuring 01 kanal and 13 marlas situated at village Jallo Chak, Tehsil and District Jammu; whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 have purchased lard bearing khasra No.124 measuring 2 kanals situated at village Chak Jallo, Tehsil and District Jammu by virtue of sale deed dated 09.04.1985. The said land purchased by the petitioners is Banjar Kadim as is reflected in the revenue record. In pursuance of the aforesaid sale deeds, the mutations in favour of the petitioners have also been attested with respect to the aforesaid land. It is further stated that ever since the date of purchase till today, the petitioners are in possession of the aforesaid land. On 12.09.2009 when the petitioners started fencing the aforesaid land by raising boundary wall over it, the army stationed at Kalu Chak along with Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu; Tehsildar, Jammu and the respondent herein started interference into the peaceful construction work of the petitioners. Being aggrieved against the said illegal interference, the petitioners herein alongwith others filed a civil suit in the court of learned Sub-Judge (CJM), Jammu, wherein the above authorities too appeared and the Sub-Judge (CJM), Jammu. Since they had no reason or ground to justify their illegal interference, learned Sub Judge (CJM), Jammu vide order dated 24.10.2019 directed them not to cause interference to the extent of raising of fencing/boundary wall covering the suit land of the petitioners. It is further stated that before passing of order dated 24.10.2010, the learned Sub-Judge (CMJ) Jammu, conducted verification with respect to the land in question and also the status of petitioners vis-à-vis the land involved.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in compliance to the directions passed by the learned Sub Judge (CIM), Jammu, on the file, the Tehsildar Settlement had filed a detailed report along with relevant record in the said case titled "Jagdish Raj vs. Union of India and others" in the court of learned Sub Judge (CJM), Jammu. It is stated that after drawing its satisfaction, the learned Sub Judge (CJM), Jammu with respect to the land in question and the status of the petitioners, passed the restraint order against the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, Assistant Commissioner as well as Tehsildar Jammu to the extent that they will not interfere into the construction work of the petitioners for raising boundary wall over the land in question. It is further stated that the petitioners in pursuance of the above said order started raising boundary wall over the aforesaid land besides some other khasra numbers in the suit, which too, was permitted by the learned Sub-Judge (CJM) Jammu.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that despite the direction passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge (CJM), Jammu the respondents forcibly and illegally dismantled the boundary wall raised by the petitioners and thereby causing huge loss to them. It is stated that against the said action of the respondent, the petitioners have also filed a contempt petition against the then Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. It is stated that against the illegal act on the part of the respondent, petitioners approached the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, by way of an application dated 27.05.2011 and the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, in turn, sent that application to the respondent herein