Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, `the Code) has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated March 31, 1997 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagadhri and order dated March 23, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri. A copy of the order dated March 31, 1997 has been appended as Annexure P.1 whereas the copy of the order dated March 23, 1999 has been appended as Annexure P.2 with the present petition. 2. In an application filed by the respondents under Section 133 of the Code the claim made by them was that the petitioners had encroached upon a part of khasra No. 43//2. It is stated that the aforesaid khasra number was a public street and, therefore, the present petitioners had absolutely no right to encroach upon the same. On the other hand, the stand taken by the present petitioners was that had purchased the land comprised in Khasra No. 44 and had constructed their house. Their specific stand was that they had no concern with the area of Khasra No. 43//2. 3. During the course of proceedings before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Local Commissioner was appointed for demarcation of the land. On receipt of the demarcation report, it was found by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate that the present petitioners had encroached upon the public street. Accordingly, they were directed to remove the aforesaid unauthorised occupation from the aforesaid khasra No. 43//2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petitioners filed a revision petition which was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri vide order dated March 23, 1999 (Annexure P.2). Even the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri found that there was some unauthorised occupation of the khasra No. 43//2. However, the learned Additional District Judge detected a mistake in the order of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and found that the obstruction in the public street was only with regard to 2 marlas and 1 marla as per the demarcation report. Accordingly, the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was modified and the present petitioners were directed to remove encroachment upon 2 marlas 1 marla as per the demarcation report. 4. The petitioners have now approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code for setting aside the aforesaid orders. 5. Accordingly, the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was modified and the present petitioners were directed to remove encroachment upon 2 marlas 1 marla as per the demarcation report. 4. The petitioners have now approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code for setting aside the aforesaid orders. 5. I have gone through the record of the case and the orders passed by the authorities below. In my considered opinion no case is made out for interference under Section 482 of the Code. The findings recorded by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the learned Additional District Judge are findings of fact which cannot be challenged in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. 6. Various pleas have been raised by the petitioners in the present petition with regard to their title over the property. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid pleas are not open for adjudication in the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code which are summary in nature. The petitioners should have sought their remedy from the Civil Court. If they had any grievance and had any claim or title over the property then they should have approached the Civil Court seeking the redressal of their grievance. 7. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. 8. Before parting with this judgment, I however, make it clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance and for adjudication of their title in accordance with law. Any thing said by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate or the learned Additional District Judge in their respective orders or said by me in the present order would not affect the merits of the controversy if and when the same is raised before the Civil Court. Petition dismissed.