Order: One Koyatti who received a notice from the Executive First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, purporting to be under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code stating: “Whereas it has been made to appear to me that you have failed to vacate the buildings in T.S. No. 226 in Ward XVII Block 3 acquired as per award No. 34/64, dated 30th September, 1964, for a Government purpose in spite of the notice under Land Acquisition Act already served on you and whereas it has become expedient to get the buildings and land vacated as it has been acquired for a Government purpose, I do hereby direct and require you within 48 hours of the receipt of this notice to vacate the said buildings and surrender possession to the Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Kozhikode who has received necessary directions in the matter orto appear before on 31st March, 1965, at 11 a.m. at my Court and show cause why this order should not be enforced.” is the revision petitioner. The order is sought to be cancelled on the ground that it is passed without jurisdiction since section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not invest the Magistrate to pass an order directing the surrender of a building which is the subject-matter of land acquisition proceedings. The learned State Prosecutor seeks to support the order on the ground that a land acquired by the Government is a “public place” coming within the purview of section 133(1) and relies upon the decision is Ramkripal Singh v. Supdt., Way and Works, E.I. Ry.1, in support of the position. I doubt if the position could be accepted as such. It appears to me that to bring the case within the purview of section 133 it has to be shown that the public is interested in the land as indicated in section 133, Criminal Procedure Code. However that controversy need not be solved in this case where under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the property becomes rested in the Government only on taking possession of the land. However that controversy need not be solved in this case where under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the property becomes rested in the Government only on taking possession of the land. The learned State Prosecutor would further maintain that even if section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, is not applicable to the facts of the case solong as the Magistrate is empowered to enforce surrender of the acquired land Under section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act to get possession of the property it may be treated as an order passed under the said section. The scope of the two provisions under different Acts is distinct and the exercise of the jurisdiction thereunder is also governed entirely by different considerations and no question of conversion of the one into the other is possible. It is open to the State if so advised to take appropriate action under the Land Acquisition Act. The notice issued by the Executive Magistrate under section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, is quashed and further proceedings are directed to be dropped. M.C.M. ----- Revision allowed.