1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
M.CR.C. NO. 9362/2013
Between:-
GIRJA SHANKAR PYASI, S/O LATE RAJARAM PYASI, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION SERVICE AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE MAJHIYAR, P.S. AND TAHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN,
DISTRICT SATNA, MADHY APRADESH

.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ARVIND SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 ARUNENDRA PYASI, S/O RAM SUNDAR

PYASI, OCCUPATION SERVICE AND
AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE MAJHIYAR,
P.S. AND TAHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN,
DISTRICT SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH
2 STATE OF M.P., THROUGH COLLECTOR,
SATNA
…….RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SHARAD VERMA, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(SHRI SATYAPAL CHADHAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 26/07/2022
Passed on : 01/08/2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for order this day, the Court passed the

following:

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against

Signature Not Verified

the order dated 29/06/2013 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Satna
SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI

Date: 2022.08.01 16:48:20 IST
 2

in Criminal Revision No.159/2013, whereby learned ASJ dismissed the

applicant’s revision and affirmed the order dated 22/05/2013 passed by
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampur Baghelan, District Satna in Case
No.2/2013, where by learned SDM has directed the applicant to remove
the obstacle which was created by him on the public road situated at
village Majhiyar, District Satna and also directed to fill the pit dug by him
on its land.
2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of this
petition are that respondent No.1 (Applicant of Case No.2/2013) filed an
application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant
(Respondent of Case No.2/2013) before Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Rampur Baghelan, District Satna averring that applicant and he both are
the residents of village Majhiyar and their houses are situated near a
public road. There is a 20 feet wide road ahead of their houses, through
which respondent no.1 and his family members reach the main road
leading to Ramnagar, their tractors etc. also come out of that road.
Respondent No.1, his family members and other residents of that village
have also been using the said road for decades to reach the main road. On
09/03/2013 applicant got two-three truck stones dumped on that road,
which has blocked the said road. Respondent No.1 has no other way to
commute (come and go) except the disputed route. When he asked the
applicant to remove the stones from the said route, the applicant abused
him. Applicant has also got a 10 feet deep pit dug in his vacant land
located adjacent to the road in front of the applicant's house, in which
rainwater is filled, from which dirt is generated and there is a danger of
Signature Not Verified
SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI

Date: 2022.08.01 16:48:20 IST
 3

cattle and children falling in the pit. So, the obstacle created by the
respondent on the road should be removed and the pit dug by him should
also be filled.
3. On that learned SDM registered Case No.2/2013 under Section 133
of the Cr.P.C. and issued preliminary order directing the applicant to
remove the obstruction and open that road and also fill the pit. SDM also
issued a notice to the applicant. On that applicant appeared before the
Court and filed a reply. The applicant in his reply has denied the
averments made by respondent no.1 and pleaded that there is only a six to
seven feet wide road in front of the respondent's house on the spot, which
is presently opened. There is no obstruction on that path. The applicant
has not dug the pit spitefully, but has extracted earth material from this
land to build a kaccha house, due to which the said pit has been created.
But that pit is not so deep that cattle or humans could drown in it. No
nuisance is created from that pit. Earlier the applicant had filed Case
No.3A-13/05-06 against father of the Respondent no.1 Sundarlal Pyasi
regarding that road. That case was decided by SDM vide order dated
18/12/06 and held that at the spot only 5-6 feet wide road is in existence
and that road is still in existence. The applicant did not close that road.
On the strength of the aforesaid, the applicant prayed for rejection of the
application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Learned SDM called the report from Patwari, who also gave the
report to the effect that there is a public road on the land bearing survey
Nos.215 & 217 at village Majhiyar and applicant closed that road by
putting stones and encroached 20 X 25 feet area of that road and also dug
Signature Not Verified
SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI

Date: 2022.08.01 16:48:20 IST
 4

10 feet wide trench in front of respondent No.1’s house, in which

rainwater gets filled creating nuisance. Thereafter, SDM also inspected
the spot and after hearing both the parties observed that on the land
bearing survey No.215 & 217 area 0.053 hectares there is a 15 feet wide
road for the public way and applicant wrongly closed that way by putting
stones on that road and also created a nuisance by digging a pit over his
land and directed the applicant to remove the obstruction and open that
road and also directed to fill the pit dug by him on his land. Being
aggrieved from that order, applicant filed Cr.R.No.159/2013, which was
dismissed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Satna vide order
dated 29/06/2013. Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed the
present petition.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that
from the revenue entries it is clear that the alleged road is on the land
which is a part of survey nos.215 & 217 and that land belongs to Tons
Hydel Project, which is not a Government land, so the provisions of
Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. are not attracted. The provisions of Section 133
of Cr.P.C. can not be intended to settle civil disputes between the parties.
There is no evidence on record to show that from the pit dug by the
applicant any nuisance is created. Learned trial Court as well as revisional
Court without appreciating these facts wrongly directed the applicant to
open the road or to fill the trench.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the prayer and
submitted that from the Patwari report it is clear that the applicant has
closed the public way by putting stones on that road and also dug a pit on
Signature Not Verified
SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI

Date: 2022.08.01 16:48:20 IST
 5

his land, which is creating nuisance, so learned SDM did not commit any
mistake in allowing the applicant's application, therefore the revision be
dismissed.
7. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by
counsel for both the parties. Applicant himself admitted in his reply that a
pit has been created over his land due to the extraction of earth material
from the land. Though the applicant has averred that no nuisance is
created from that pit, in the Patwari report it is clearly mentioned that
there is a pit on land of survey No.216. SDM also after inspecting the spot
found that there is a pit on the land of survey No.216, which creates
pollution due to filling of water. Likewise, in his reply, the applicant
himself admitted that there is a road in front of the respondent No.1's
house on the spot, he only disputed that said road is not 15 feet wide, only
6-7 feet wide. In this regard, he also filed a copy of the order earlier
passed by the SDM in case No.3A-13/05-06. In that order also learned
SDM held that there is a public way on the disputed land. Though, in that
order, it is mentioned that the said road is 6-7 feet wide, in the impugned
order learned SDM holds that the road is 15 feet wide. It is natural for the
kaccha road to widen due to the frequent movement of people. Even that
case was dismissed by the SDM, so the observation of SDM regarding
width of the road has no binding effect. The land of survey Nos. 215 and
217 belongs to Tons Hydel Project, which is a Government body and not
a private entity. Even, when such a right is obstructed on a private road,
where the public has access, powers under Section 133 Cr.P.C. can be
invoked.
Signature Not Verified
SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI

Date: 2022.08.01 16:48:20 IST
 6

8. Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Ram Lal And Another Vs.
Shri Dharam Vir, 2001 Cri.L.J., 4507 held "Law in this regard is well
settled. Section 133 Cr.P.C. provides summary remedy for removal of
specific public nuisances or obstructions etc. It is not intended to settle
private dispute between the two members of the public. Proceedings
under this Section do not affect the right of the public to approach a civil
Court for determining the question of title. The Magistrate's jurisdiction
under this Section can be invoked even by a private individual despite
availability of an alternative remedy. The encroachment on the public
road, however small, would inevitably result in obstruction to the persons,
who may have the occasion to use the same. The expression in Section
133 Cr.P.C. "which is or may be lawfully used by the public" clearly
shows that all that is required to be shown is that the land in dispute is the
public way, etc. which can be lawfully used by the public. The expression
"public way" has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. or the Penal Code.
Public way is the place where the public has a right to go or to which
public can have an access by way of right either by admission, usage or
otherwise. It is not necessary that the title of the place should be in the
public. It would depend upon the character of the place and the usage
actually made of it in the past or at a given point of time. These are all
questions of fact which can only be determined after proper adjudication."
9. In the khasra entries of survey Nos. 215 & 217 also it is mentioned
that there is a road on that land. That road is on the land of the Tons
Hydel Project, so the applicant has no right to obstruct that road and
dispute the width of the road. So in the considered opinion of this Court,
Signature Not Verified
SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI

Date: 2022.08.01 16:48:20 IST
 7

learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in passing the impugned
order.
10. Accordingly, the petition filed by the applicant has no force and is
hereby dismissed.
11. Records of both the Courts below be sent to the concerned Courts
alongwith the copy of the order.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)

JUDGE

as

Signature Not Verified

SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI

Date: 2022.08.01 16:48:20 IST