JUDGMENT Oak, J. - This reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra arises out of a proceeding u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Superintendent Government Gardens, Agra, made a report to the effect that, Ram Singh had made an encroachment on Government land in survey No. 317 in Agra Cantonment. The learned Magistrate issued notice to Ram Singh calling upon him to show cause why the encroachment should not be removed. After the enquiry the learned Magistrate passed on 25-5-1955 an order making the preliminary order absolute. 2. Against this order a revision application was filed by Ram Singh. The revision application was disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Agra. He has made this reference recommending that, the learned Magistrate's order made u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure should be set aside. 3. The Complainant produced before the court a number of witnesses to prove that, the land in dispute belongs to Government. After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that, the plot in question is a roadside plot on river side. This view is also supported by the survey map filed by the complainant. We find the Jamuna Road marked as survey No. 316. The river itself has been marked as survey No. 318. Plot No. 317 is a narrow strip of land lying between Jamuna Road and the river. The learned Magistrate's view that this land belongs to Government appears to be correct. 4. The question, however, remains whether this finding was sufficient for ordering Ram Singh to remove his construction u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure. states: Whenever ... a Magistrate ... considers ... that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public, or "from any public place, ... such Magistrate may make a conditional order... 5. In order to bring the case within the purview of Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution had to prove that the land in question is either a public way or a public place. The prosecution does not appear to have led any evidence on the point. The prosecution was content with the proof that, this is Government land. In order to bring the case within the purview of Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution had to prove that the land in question is either a public way or a public place. The prosecution does not appear to have led any evidence on the point. The prosecution was content with the proof that, this is Government land. But encroachment on Government land may not suffice for taking proceedings u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure. It must be shown that the public is interested in the land as indicated in Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure. It does not appear that the land in suit is a public way. Nor has it been shown that the public has any particular interest in this strip of land lying between the public road and the river. 6. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that, the parties should be left to settle their dispute in the Civil Court. The fact that Ram Singh made encroachment on Govt. land was not sufficient for taking action u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The reference is accepted. The learned Magistrate's order dated 25-5-1955 is cancelled. The proceedings u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure against Ram Singh are quashed.