ORDER C.D. Parekh, J. - In this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-3-1964, passed by the Nyay Panchayat Dhakka Karamchand Harra Ahmedpur Jalla, Dhampur, district Bijnor. 2. The relevant facts as stated in the petition are that the Petitioner claims himself to be in possession and owner of plot No. 351 in village Gajpura, Pargana Dhampur, district Bijnor. Respondent No. 4, Dalloo filed a complaint on 7-11-1963, against the Petitioner in the court of Nyay Panchayat Dhakka Karamchand Harra Ahmedpur Jalla, police station Dhampur on the allegations that the Petitioner has encroached on a pathway belonging to Respondent No. 4 and had threatened to burn his house. Respondent No. 4 in that complaint prayed that the encroachment be removed and action for intimidation and criminal trespass be taken against the Petitioner. As it appears the Nyay Panchayat by order dated 27-3-1964, granted a pathway measuring about two gatha from plot No. 351 belonging to the Petitioner. This is the impugned order and it runs thus: Aj Tarikh 27-3-1964 ko yah wad pesh hua. Koram Poora hone par enquiry ki gai. Jhabban Singh ke 351 number me se (2) do gattha ka rasta 350 No. me jane ke liye Nyay Panchayat se Dallooo Singh ke liye rasta pas hua. Ghonki aur kahi ko rasta nahi tha. Mauke par mayna karke apne kaksh wa panch aur Gram Pradhan 2 garh ka rasta de diya gaya. Against this order the Petitioner filed revision u/s 89 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act before the Munsif, Annexure D to the writ petition. The Munsif held that the case was registered as a criminal case by the Nyay Panchayat and the order was passed in a criminal case by the Nyay Panchayat. The revision, therefore, did not lie. The Munsif, therefore, dismissed the revision application of the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner filed another revision u/s 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act before the SDM concerned. He also filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act claiming that he had been agitating the matter before the civil court and therefore, the delay in filing the revision application be condoned. The magistrate held that the allegations contained in the complaint were clearly allegations of criminal trespass and intimidation but rejected the application as the revision was not-filed within time and did not condone the delay. 3. The magistrate held that the allegations contained in the complaint were clearly allegations of criminal trespass and intimidation but rejected the application as the revision was not-filed within time and did not condone the delay. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended before me that the Nyay Panchayat was not competent to pass such an order. The order being without jurisdiction it should be quashed. 4. The purported complaint is Annexure A to the writ petition but from the reading of the complaint it does not appear that it was filed as a criminal complaint against the Petitioner. However, the Munsif did not apply his mind to the allegations contained in the purported complaint but on the basis of the fact that the case was registered as a criminal case he dismissed the revision filed before him by the Petitioner. The SDM before whom the second revision u/s 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act was filed came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint were that of the criminal nature, i.e. criminal trespass and intimidation. The illegality was brought to his notice and even if he was not satisfied about the delay in filing the revision application he had ample powers u/s 85 to set right the illegalities that were pointed out to him. u/s 85 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act a SDM may interfere on his own motion as well. The mere fact that the magistrate rejected the revision application should not stand in the way of this Court to see that the proceedings before the subordinate tribunals are taken, in a legal manner. I feel that there is an obligation on this Court to superintend and supervise the proceedings before the subordinate tribunals and to see that the orders passed by the subordinate tribunals are not illegal and contrary to law and if something of that nature, i.e. the illegality, is brought to the notice of this Court there should not be any hesitation or refusal on its part to interfere merely because on idle technicalities the subordinate tribunals have refused to interfere. 5. In the instant case I think the order passed by the Nyay Panchayat is illegal and cannot be supported under any of the provisions of the law. The SDM should have interfered with that order and should not have allowed the illegalities committed by the Nyay Panchayat to continue. 5. In the instant case I think the order passed by the Nyay Panchayat is illegal and cannot be supported under any of the provisions of the law. The SDM should have interfered with that order and should not have allowed the illegalities committed by the Nyay Panchayat to continue. It is correct to say that the Nyay Panchayat was competent to try an offence for criminal intimidation and criminal trespass and u/s 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the person dispossessed may have been put into possession but there was no applicability of Section 522 before conviction. I have not been able to follow and understand under what provision of law the Nyay Panchayat passed the impugned order and dispossessed the Petitioner from his own land which was in his possession prior to the passing of the order. 6. I therefore, quash the order dated 27-3-1964, of the Nyay Panchayat and also the orders passed by the Munsif and the SDM and direct that if the Petitioner has been dispossessed from his land the Nyay Panchayat should restore him to his possession. I allow this writ petition and assess a sum of Rs. 200/- (Rs. Two hundred only) as costs to be paid by the Nyay Panchayat to the Petitioner.