Judgment :- The Criminal Revision is filed against the order-dated 08.02.2006 passed in Crl.M.P. No.10304 of 2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: i) The complainant is an agriculturist. The first accused is the President of Veannikonendal Panchayat. A.2 and A.3 are the close friends of A.1. A.4 is the retired Tahsildar. A.5 is the Revenue Inspector. A.6 is the Village Administrative Officer of Karukkalpatti Village. ii) There was dispute regarding the porombok land in S.No.1124 in Vannikonendal village. Before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruenlveli, the defacto-complainant agreed to vacate the survey No.1124, Vannikonendal village, Sankarankovil. The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 17.07.2001 passed an order directing the Tahsildar to remove the encroachment in S.No.1124, Vannikonendal village, Sankarankovil. Second and third accused sold a portion of porombok land in S.No.564 to Shanmugathai and Sankarapandi and others. Shanmugathai purchased that property on 111. 1974 and constructed a house in the porombok land in S.No.1124. Shanmugathai attempted to encroach the land in S.No.1149, which was in possession and enjoyment of the complainant and his ancestors. So, in order to take revenge, she along with her relatives/accused had changed the Survey No.1149 instead of 1124. in the notice issued on 14.08.2001, the accused purposely altered the Survey Number. Hence, the petition. 3. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. 4. The investigating officer filed referred charge sheet. Then a protest petition was filed by the complainant. Learned Magistrate after consideration of the materials and the submissions made by both parties, passed an order on 08.02.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, dismissed the protest petition. 5. Aggrieved over the dismissal order of the learned Magistrate, this revision has been filed. 6. The point for consideration is: Whether the revision is maintainable? 7. The Point: No doubt the petitioner has encroached the porombok land in S.Nos.1124 and 1149. According to the petitioner, he agreed before the Revenue Divisinal Officer that he would vacate the land in S.No.1124. But he would claim that a notice was sent to him in Na.ka.No. 12/088/2002 dated 14.08.2001 directing him to vacate the land in S.No.1149. A perusal of that notice would show that the S.No.1124 typed already was subsequently struck of and instead of that S.No.1149/1 was written in pen. Revenue Divisional Office pronounced the order on 17.07.2001. But he would claim that a notice was sent to him in Na.ka.No. 12/088/2002 dated 14.08.2001 directing him to vacate the land in S.No.1149. A perusal of that notice would show that the S.No.1124 typed already was subsequently struck of and instead of that S.No.1149/1 was written in pen. Revenue Divisional Office pronounced the order on 17.07.2001. In that order he directed the Tahsildar to inspect and measure the encroachment made by the petitioner and others and to remove the encroachers and submit a report to Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil. The order of Revenue Divisional Officer reads as follows: 8. Notice was issued by the Tahsildar directing the petitioner to vacate the S.No.1149. In that S.No.1124 is missing. A perusal of the notice dated 14.08.2001, it is seen that though the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order in respect of S.No.1124 and in the notice, there was correction in respect of Survey number and written as S.No.1149. So, it is clear that Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order on in respect of S.No.1124 but notice was sent in respect of S.No.1149. The petitioner has also filed a writ petition before the High Court for grant of patta in respect of S.No.1149. So, it is clear that there is correction in respect of S.No.1124 and that has to be probed by the Investigating Officer as to whether it is done willfully or not. So, I am of the view that it is just and proper to remand the matter to the trial Court to direct an investigating officer to probe into the matter and submit a report. 9. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 08.02.2006 passed in Crl.M.P. No.10304 of 2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. It is for the Magistrate to direct the same investigating officer or some other investigating officer to probe into the matter and submit a report.