JUDGMENT 1. - This is a Miscellaneous Petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, whereby he confirmed the order of SDM Bayana dated 21-10-81 in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1/80. 2. Ratan Singh, the non-petitioner filed an application under section 133, Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M., Bayana alleging that Khasra Nos. 190, 192, and 195 in village Ballabhnagar, Tehsil Weir, are the numbers of public way. This way was being used by the villagers for coming and going to their field as well as for carrying their cattle etc. The present petitioners, Hari singh, Partap & Fatte, who were the non-applicants in that application possessed their fields on both the sides of this public way, These persons and on account of their influence they have encroached over this way. This way was included by the non-applicants in their field. Hence, Ratan Singh alleged that the non-applicants have created nuisance and requested that they may be dispossessed from the public way and the way be opened for public as well as for their cattle as usual. 3. The non-applicants, i.e., the present petitioners have contested that application. Their contention was that they are in possession of this way since, the public had never used this way for themselves or for cattle. This way is under their cultivation. The application has been submitted on account of enmity. As such, it was requested that it may be dismissed. 4. The learned SDM after making enquiry in this matter agreed with the applicant Ratan Singh and accepted the application under section 133, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate directed the present petitioners to remove the obstruction created by them on Khasra No. 190 and 195 within 15 days. Against this order, this petitioners went in revision before the Sessions Judge, and it was disposed of by the Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 5-3-83. The revision petition of the petitioners was rejected and the judgment of the learned SDM was confirmed. The petitioners have now come up before this Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. The first point to be seen is, whether an application under section 482, Cr.P.C. is maintainable under such circumstances, as alleged by the parties. The petitioners have not submitted any document either before the SDM or before the Addl. Sessions Judge to prove that khasra Nos. The petitioners have now come up before this Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. The first point to be seen is, whether an application under section 482, Cr.P.C. is maintainable under such circumstances, as alleged by the parties. The petitioners have not submitted any document either before the SDM or before the Addl. Sessions Judge to prove that khasra Nos. 190, 192 and 195 are in their ownership and they are in possession of them as owner. It is also not disputed by the petitioners that they are being treated as trespassers over these khasra numbers. The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that from the revenue record itself it is clear that the petitioners arc in possession of these khasra numbers, though as trespasser but proceedings are being initiated to regularise their possession. Even for the sake of argument it is believed that some proceedings have been initiated for regularising the possession of the petitioners, but this is an undisputed fact that they are trespassers over these khasra numbers. They have no ownership over these plots. They might be in possession but their possession is as trespasser. The trespasser has no right to encroach over these plots until their ownership is established, or the khasra numbers are mentioned in their ownership in the revenue record. They might be in possession, but being trespasser their possession did not give them any right of ownership. The learned SDM after enquiry came to this conclusion that the petitioner have illegally obstructed the way. The revenue record shows that these khasra numbers are 'Gair Mumkin', i.e., it was never cultivated. The contentions of the petitioners that they are in possession and they had plantation of mangoes, Roses and Papitas etc., on these plots has no force. As such, the existence of trees and other plantation on this way is of no help to the petitioners. Whatever the learned SDM has decided is on the basis of the revenue record and on the undisputed fact that the petitioners are only trespassers. The learned SDM has correctly help and correctly directed the petitioners to remove the obstruction created on these khasra numbers. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also correctly confirmed the order of the learned SDM. Whatever the learned SDM has decided is on the basis of the revenue record and on the undisputed fact that the petitioners are only trespassers. The learned SDM has correctly help and correctly directed the petitioners to remove the obstruction created on these khasra numbers. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also correctly confirmed the order of the learned SDM. As such, all these circumstances prove that it is not a case to come before this court section 482, Cr.P.C., under this section, this Court has inherent powers to make such order as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not shown to me any material which indicates that the court has misused or abused the process of the law. These is no question of meeting the ends of justice, as the petitioners are trespassers. I fail to understand as to what injustice has been caused to them. As such, such miscellaneous petitions are not at all maintainable. The petitioners have unnessarily moved this Court under the garb of section 482, Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere in the order of the learned SDM and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. On legal aspect also, this Misc. Petition is not at all maintainable under section 482. Cr.P.C. On merits also, the petition has no force. 6. Hence, the application under section 482, Cr.P.C. is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******