Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, in case No.22/iv/2023, titled as Sh. Hir Chand Vs. Sh. Pramod Kumar and Another, whereby afore authority, while allowing the complaint filed by respondent No.1 under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) directed petitioners herein to remove the obstruction caused by them on the path in dispute, petitioners have approached this Court praying therein to set aside aforesaid order.

2. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that a specific objection was raised at the behest of learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 that present petition is not maintainable as the order is revisable, and Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2024, accepted the objection raised by the afore respondent that the present petition is not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the availability of alternative remedies. Thereafter, Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2024 passed in Cr.MP No.1275 of 2024, allowed the application filed by the petitioner and ordered conversion of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Criminal Revision Petition.

3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) filed a complaint before the Police alleging therein that petitioners have blocked the path (gair mumkin rasta) comprising of Khasra No.720, situate in village Basteri, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur. Taking cognizance of afore complaint, Station House Officer, Police Station Sangla, District Kinnaur, conducted investigation and found that in case path alleged to be obstructed by petitioners is not opened, there may be breach of peace in the area and accordingly presented Kalandra under Section 147(4) of Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, on 22.06.2023.

4. Immediately after receipt of afore Kalandra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed Tehsildar, Sangla, to give his report, who in his report dated 24.06.2023 though stated that path in dispute is in Khasra No.720, measuring 00-02-66 hectare, belonging to Mr. Basti Ram etc., but the same has been obstructed by Mr. Padam Singh son of Sh. Ajan Singh and Mr. Pramod Kumar son of Mr. Dharam Sukh, i.e. petitioners herein.

5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that no opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to the petitioners by Sub-Divisional Magistrate before passing the impugned order. He further submitted that once it stood established on record that Khasra Nos.719 and 720 are owned and possessed by petitioners, there was no occasion, if any, for the authority concerned to eject them from their own land. Mr. Khajuria further submitted that question of title can only be adjudicated by the Civil Court and Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no authority to decide the question of title, hence, he could not direct the Police to forcefully evict the petitioners, who are co-owners of the land in dispute. Mr. Khajuria further submitted that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, while passing impugned order, has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested with him, hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be adduced on record by the respondents to substantiate their plea that land in dispute was being used by them as well as other villagers from the times immemorial, hence, impugned order, which has otherwise been passed in hot-haste manner, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Khajuria further argued that petitioners had fil