( 1 ) THESE two revisional applications are directed against the order dated 31st May, 2004 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore in connection with M. P. Case No. 538/89 under section 133 of the Cr. PC and also against the order dated 29th July, 2004 passed by the said Executive magistrate refusing to recall or modify the order dated 31st May, 2004 and against the order dated 30th March, 2005 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Alipore in Criminal Revision No. 454/04 thereby affirming the order dated 31st May, 2004 passed by the learned executive Magistrate in the aforesaid M. P. case. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Executive Magistrate dated 31st May, 2004 and July 29, 2004 the petitioner Smt. Ira Ganguly has preferred C. R. R. No. 2080/04. The petitioner of C. R. R. No. 1068/05 is the husband of the petitioner of C. R. R. No. 2080/04, and the petitioner of C. R. R. No. 1068/05 has preferred the revisional application against order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirming the order of the Executive Magistrate. As the factual matrix and points of law involved in these revisional applications are identical, I intend to dispose of both the revisional applications by this common judgment and order. ( 2 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that plot No. 45a of jainuddin Mistri Lane was purchased by Smt. Ira Ganguly, the petitioner of c. R. R. No. 2080/04. The Calcutta Corporation had mutated the said plot in her name in the year 1988. Before that, the Land and Land Reforms Department of the Government of West Bengal by letter dated 29th June 1985 informed one pradip Kumar Das, the vendor of Ira Ganguly that premises No. 45, Jainuddin mistri Lane is not affected under any land acquisition proceeding. The Calcutta improvement Trust by letter dated 26. 12. 85 informed her that property of 45, jainuddin Mistri Lane is not allocated at present by any published/sanctioned scheme/alignment of the trust. The plot 45 was subsequently divided into plots 45a and 45b and Ira Ganguly is owner of plot 45a. Strange, the proceeding under section 133 of the Cr. PC in M. P. case No. 538/89 was started by CMDA now Kolkata Improvement Trust against Monojit Ganguly in respect of 45, jainuddin Mistri Lane. The plot 45 was subsequently divided into plots 45a and 45b and Ira Ganguly is owner of plot 45a. Strange, the proceeding under section 133 of the Cr. PC in M. P. case No. 538/89 was started by CMDA now Kolkata Improvement Trust against Monojit Ganguly in respect of 45, jainuddin Mistri Lane. The proceeding under section 133 of the Cr. PC was thus started against a person who had no connection at all with the plot 45 or 45a of Jainuddin Mistri Lane. When Ira Ganguly came to know about starting of the proceeding under section 133 of the Cr. PC she applied for impleading her a party in the said proceeding, but, the learned Executive Magistrate by order dated July 29, 2004 rejected her prayer and refused to recall or modify the order dated 31st May, 2004. ( 3 ) MR. Abhijit Chottopadhayay for the petitioner next contended that before the learned Executive Magistrate evidence were not recorded. The learned magistrate did not follow the provisions of sections 137 and 138 of the Cr. PC and in the impugned order dated 31st May, 2004 the learned Magistrate did not discuss the evidence at all. The learned Magistrate did not give any direction for show -cause and there was no evidence and no hearing and, without following the essential requirements of a proceeding under section 133 of the Cr. PC passed an order for removal of building constructed by Ira Ganguly. The learned additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind at all into the matter and did not take pains to go through the papers and documents for ascertaining us to which plot was involved in the proceeding and who was owner of the same. Entire dispute was of civil nature and settled principle of law is that provisions of section 133 of the Cr. PC cannot be invoked in matters of civil dispute. The plots 44/1, 44/1a and petitioner's land being plot No. 45a of Jainuddin Mistri lane are separate. Neither Monojit Ganguly nor his wife Ira Ganguly are owners of plot 44/1a but, the learned Executive Magistrate in spite of that started the proceeding against Monojit Ganguly. ( 4 ) MR. PC cannot be invoked in matters of civil dispute. The plots 44/1, 44/1a and petitioner's land being plot No. 45a of Jainuddin Mistri lane are separate. Neither Monojit Ganguly nor his wife Ira Ganguly are owners of plot 44/1a but, the learned Executive Magistrate in spite of that started the proceeding against Monojit Ganguly. ( 4 ) MR. Chottopadhayay further submitted that the learned Executive magistrate did not go through the police report and one S. I. of police attached to New Alipore P. S. after enquiry mentioned in his report that land of plot No. 44/1a was still lying vacant till date of inspection. It was mentioned by the police officer after enquiry that Ira Ganguly purchased plot No. 45a by registered deed on 12th March 1986, and prior to that, she obtained clearance certificate from Land and Land Reforms Department, Kolkata Improvement Trust. She also obtained sanctioned plan form City Architect Department of Kolkata municipal Corporation and Kolkata Municipal Corporation also mutated her name in respect of plot No. 45a, Jainuddin Mistri Lane. The learned Executive magistrate did not go through the police report and passed an order which is wholly illegal. The said order was passed against Monojit Ganguly who was not at all owner of plot No. 45a or plot No. 44/1a, Jainuddin Mistri Lane. The learned Executive Magistrate in his order observed that the deed was not produced by Monojit Ganguly. As Monojit Ganguly did not purchase plot No. 44/1a question of producing deed by Monojit Ganguly in respect of such plot did not arise. It was indicated by the learned Magistrate that corporation papers were changed and such observation was without any foundation and evidence. Without taking any evidence of witnesses including expert's evidence the learned magistrate could not have observed that the premises No. 45, Jainuddin Mistri lane was shown to have been created after striking out premises No. 14. The order of the learned Executive Magistrate as well as the order of the learned additional Sessions Judge being bad in law and non-application of judicial mind require to be set aside. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, Mr. Kuddus and Mr. Talukdar for the opposite party kit submitted that the LA Collector acquired the land and after acquisition of the same it was allotted to CIT, now KIT. The petitioner should have filed civil suit for declaration and injunction. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, Mr. Kuddus and Mr. Talukdar for the opposite party kit submitted that the LA Collector acquired the land and after acquisition of the same it was allotted to CIT, now KIT. The petitioner should have filed civil suit for declaration and injunction. Monojit Ganguly as DW. 1 did not produce the deed to show purchase of land by his wife. The land allegedly purchased by ira Ganguly is completely different and they had no right or authority to purchase a portion of land which was allotted to KIT after acquisition by the la Collector. The petitioners have encroached over KIT land and the learned magistrate rightly passed the order for removing the building. ( 6 ) MR. Talukdar further submitted that two sketch maps were placed before the corporation and there were interpolations in the sketch maps and plot numbers were changed and by deleting the figure 14 plot No. 45 was mentioned in the papers of petitioners. Monojit Ganguly was able to manage the staffs of both Kolkata Municipal Corporation as well as officers of New Alipore Police station, KMC and New Alipore P. S. did not ask any paper from the office of kit. The admitted fact is that, the petitioners have constructed a building over the land belonging to KIT. There was no valid deed in favour of the petitioners showing purchase of land allotted to KIT after the land was acquired. The petitioners came to Court not with clean hands and revisional applications under section 482 of the Cr. PC are not maintainable. ( 7 ) MR. Talukdar strenuously contended that mutation made by the Kolkata municipal Corporation does not create title in favour of the petitioners as papers of mutation cannot be regarded as valid documents of title. In view of provisions of section 153a of the Land Acquisition Act civil suit is clear bar. The disputed land in question was acquired by the LA Collector in land acquisition case and, the land which was acquired by the LA Collector cannot be transferred in favour of a private person. At present KIT is the owner of plot 45 and 44/1a of Jainuddin mistri Lane. The disputed land in question was acquired by the LA Collector in land acquisition case and, the land which was acquired by the LA Collector cannot be transferred in favour of a private person. At present KIT is the owner of plot 45 and 44/1a of Jainuddin mistri Lane. The petitioners did not produce the deed to show purchase of land by Ira Ganguly and no deed was produced either before the Court of Executive magistrate or before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Mr. Talukdar also contended that in view of the Explanation added to section 133 of the Cr. PC a "public place" includes also property belonging to the state, camping grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes. The petitioners have encroached over the land belonging to KIT and the said land was a public place and accordingly in view of provisions of section 133 Cr. PC the Executive Magistrate has the power to direct removal or obstruction of public place. The order passed by the learned Executive magistrate was thus correct and legal and the learned Additional Sessions judge rightly appreciated the entire matter and accordingly dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner. The orders passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge as well as by the learned Executive Magistrate being correct, proper and legal require no interference. ( 8 ) MR. Talukdar next contended that the petitioners are making their claim over plot No. 45a and in fact there was no such plot No. 45a and the petitioners after deleting the figure 14 converted it into plot No. 45. Mr. Talukdar next contended that the present revisional applications are not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 397 (3) of the Cr. PC, as the present revisional applications are second revision. In support of his contention Mr. Talukdar placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh, reported in 1979 Cr. LJ 318, Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M. D. Bhagwat, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1767 , Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1622 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore, reported in 1988 (1) SCC 626 . LJ 318, Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M. D. Bhagwat, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1767 , Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1622 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore, reported in 1988 (1) SCC 626 . ( 9 ) I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and I have also perused the materials on record, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the Executive Magistrate and the decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the opposite party. First of all, I like to make it clear that section 397 (3) of the Cr. PC no doubt lays down that, if an application in this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. The Supreme Court in Jagjir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh (supra) indicated that the object of section 397 (3) is to prevent a multiple exercise of revisional powers and to secure early finality to orders. Any person aggrieved by an order of an inferior Criminal Court is given the option to approach either before the sessions Judge or the High Court and once he exercises the option he is precluded from invoking the revisional jurisdiction of other authority. ( 10 ) THE present revisional applications were not filed under section 397 of the Cr. PC but those were filed under section 482 of the Cr. PC. It is also well-settled that mention of a wrong section in the cause title is merely a technical ground and the High Court has power to convert one application suitably into proper section. Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be a bar for preferring second revision. Besides that, there are several other decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court itself wherein it was laid down by the highest Court of India that there was nothing in sections 397 and 399 of the Cr. PC which prevents the high Court to interfere in its inherent jurisdiction with an order of Sessions judge if the order of the Sessions Judge was manifestly illegal, irregular, improper or perverse or without jurisdiction. PC which prevents the high Court to interfere in its inherent jurisdiction with an order of Sessions judge if the order of the Sessions Judge was manifestly illegal, irregular, improper or perverse or without jurisdiction. It was also held that where earlier revisional application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge the High Court can entertain second revisional application and make necessary orders to secure ends of justice. It is thus clear that, if the orders passed by the learned Sessions judge in a revision was perverse, manifestly illegal or without jurisdiction the high Court has the power to interfere into the matter in subsequent revision. I am unable to agree with the views of Mr. Talukdar that the present revisional applications are not entertainable being a clear bar under section 397 (3) of the cr. PC, I am of the opinion that the High Court has the power to entertain second revisional application, if it appears that the order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge was manifestly illegal and perverse and was product of non-application of mind into the matters which was placed before him in the revision. ( 11 ) AFTER going through the impugned order passed by the learned Executive magistrate dated 31. 5. 04 I find that the learned Magistrate did not follow the provisions of section 133 to section 138 of the Cr. PC. The very first paragraph of the order of the learned Magistrate shows that Monojit Ganguly raised a question before the learned Magistrate that his wife Smt. Ira Ganguly had purchased the land in question and constructed a building on the strength of plan sanctioned by Kolkata Municipal Corporation after Kolkata Municipal corporation mutated her name in respect of that plot. Strange, in spite such indication the learned Magistrate did not implead Ira Ganguly, the person who purchased the disputed land. The learned Magistrate proceeded into the matter in the proceeding under section 133 of the Cr. PC, against Monojit ganguly who was not the purchaser of the disputed land and who was not at all a necessary or proper party into the said proceeding. It is really unfortunate that the learned Magistrate did not apply proper mind into the matter and did not think that he was proceeding into a matter against a person who was not the purchaser of the disputed land. It is really unfortunate that the learned Magistrate did not apply proper mind into the matter and did not think that he was proceeding into a matter against a person who was not the purchaser of the disputed land. Ira Ganguly filed an application before the learned Magistrate for impleading her as a party, but the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind into the matter and rejected her application for impleading her as a party into the proceeding. ( 12 ) SECTION 133 of the Cr. PC prescribes how a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate on receiving report of police officer and on taking evidence as he thinks fit pass orders for removal of public nuisance. Section 135 prescribes as to the person against whom such order can be made. Section 137 prescribes the procedure where existence of public right is denied. Section 138 lays down the procedure where the person against whom an order under section 133 is made appears and submits show-cause. The language of section 133 as well as section 138 of the Cr. PC clearly lays down that on taking evidence necessary order may be passed. It is also well settled that an order under section 138 of the Cr. PC clearly lays down that on taking evidence necessary order may be passed. It is also well-settled that an order under section 133 of the Cr. PC cannot be passed against a person who did not obstruct the public place or public path. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the learned Magistrate without recording evidence, without direction to submit show-cause and without giving any opportunity of hearing passed the order for removal of building. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the O. P. submitted that the evidence was recorded and DW. 1 was asked to produce deed but he did not produce any deed. The very impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate does not show that the learned Magistrate considered the evidence. The learned magistrate, as it appears from the said order, only perused documents produced by KIT and Monojit Ganguly. From the order of the learned Magistrate it is evident that Ira Ganguly purchased the disputed land and constructed building on the strength of sanctioned plan granted by the KMC. The learned magistrate, as it appears from the said order, only perused documents produced by KIT and Monojit Ganguly. From the order of the learned Magistrate it is evident that Ira Ganguly purchased the disputed land and constructed building on the strength of sanctioned plan granted by the KMC. In spite of such knowledge, the learned Executive Magistrate did not implead Ira Ganguly as a party. It is clear that any order that could have been passed under section 133 of the Cr. PC for alleged obstruction of the public place or land belonging to the KIT should have been against Ira Ganguly and not Monojit Ganguly. Monojit ganguly was not the owner of the disputed land and he did not construct building on such land. It is clear that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order under section 133 of the Cr. PC against a wrong person and did not realise that in that matter Ira Ganguly was not only a proper party but necessary party. The learned Magistrate also did not consider whether Kolkata Municipal corporation, the Land and Land Reforms Department were to be impleaded in the proceeding under section 133 of the Cr. PC before passing any order. ( 14 ) THE Land and Land Reforms Department gave no objection certificate in respect of the premises No. 45, Jainuddin Mistri Lane by mentioning that the said plot is not affected under any land acquisition proceeding. It should have been considered by the learned Magistrate as to how and under which circumstances such a certificate was granted on 29th June, 1985 and why the concerned officers of Land and Land Reforms Department should not be asked to be present before the learned Magistrate to explain the circumstances under which such certificate was granted and whether it was done rightly or due to some mistake. The learned Magistrate also did not consider as to whether representation of Kolkata Municipal Corporation was necessary in that proceeding as Kolkata Municipal Corporation mutated the disputed land allegedly in the name of Smt. Ira Ganguly and also sanctioned the plan for construction of building and on the strength of such sanctioned plan the building was constructed. The learned Magistrate also did not consider as to whether representation of Kolkata Municipal Corporation was necessary in that proceeding as Kolkata Municipal Corporation mutated the disputed land allegedly in the name of Smt. Ira Ganguly and also sanctioned the plan for construction of building and on the strength of such sanctioned plan the building was constructed. Without hearing the concerned authorities how the learned magistrate could pass such order and without requisitioning the service of expert how the learned Magistrate without evidence came to a conclusion that striking out premises No. 14, premises No. 45 was inserted in the site plan which was allegedly submitted by Monojit Ganguly. Merely the fact that Monojit Ganguly submitted the site place how he can be regarded as illegal occupant when kolkata Municipal Corporation mutated the disputed land in the name of Smt. Ira Ganguly and sanctioned the plan for construction of building in the name of ira Ganguly. The proverb "husband and wife is the same person" is not applicable in the matters of property where title is involved. Here it is evident that the deed for the disputed land, if any, was in the name of Ira Ganguly. The learned Magistrate did not issue any notice on Ira Ganguly asking her to produce the deed in question. ( 15 ) IT is clear, therefore, that the learned Executive Magistrate passed an order which is patently illegal and product of non-consideration of essential materials and also non-application of mind. Without following the legal procedures and without impleading necessary parties the learned Executive magistrate passed the order under section 133 of the Cr. PC against a wrong person. The order of the learned Executive Magistrate dated 31st May, 2004 and 29th July 2004 being not in accordance with law, are set aside. The learned additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision did not go through the matters properly and did not apply judicial mind and did not consider as to whether such an order could have been passed against Monojit Ganguly who was not a proper party and who was not the owner or possessor of the disputed land. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in Criminal revision No. 454/04 being not in accordance with law is also set aside. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in Criminal revision No. 454/04 being not in accordance with law is also set aside. ( 16 ) THERE cannot be any dispute over the fact that, if a land is acquired by the LA Collector in a land acquisition proceeding and subsequently the said land is allotted to KIT, a private party cannot encroach over such land to construct a building. If any third party or private party makes encroachment over such acquired land which became a public place, order for removal of such obstruction is the correct procedure. But, before passing the order for removal of obstruction legal procedures are to be followed, adopted and proper enquiry, verification is necessary as to how the Land and Land Reforms Department in the year 1985, the Kolkata Improvement Trust by letter dated 26. 12. 85 issued certificate in favour of Ira Ganguly stating that the land in question in respect of premises No. 45, Jainuddin Mistri Lane is not affected under any land acquisition proceeding and CIT issued the certificate that the property of 45, jainuddin Mistri Lane is not allocated at present by any published/sanctioned scheme/alignment of the trust. It was also not inquired into how Kolkata municipal Corporation mutated the land in question in favour of Ira Ganguly and also sanctioned the plan of building in favour of Ira Ganguly. The learned magistrate did not go through the police report where the police officer stated that plot no. 44/1a of Jainuddin Mistri Lane is still lying vacant and Ira Ganguly is the owner and possessor of land of 45a, Jainuddin Mistri Lane. There was no attempt to identify as to whether the land over which the building was allegedly constructed by Ira Ganguly is the land of KIT. Unless these matters are considered and proper procedures are adopted an effective order for removal of public nuisance cannot be passed. ( 17 ) THE matter is remitted back to the learned Executive Magistrate, 1st court, Alipore for decideing the application under section 133 of the Cr. PC afresh. The learned Magistrate should proceed into the matter in accordance with law and would issue proper notice to the proper and all necessary parties into the matter and after hearing the said parties, if they appear, would pass necessary order in accordance with law. PC afresh. The learned Magistrate should proceed into the matter in accordance with law and would issue proper notice to the proper and all necessary parties into the matter and after hearing the said parties, if they appear, would pass necessary order in accordance with law. It is a very old matter of 1989 no doubt, and over such matter it is difficult to fix a time limit to conclude the matter within 4 months or 6 months when so many complicated questions as indicated above are involved. Accordingly it is expected that considering the gravity of the matter as well as of long pendency of the matter, the learned executive Magistrate would try to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. ( 18 ) IN the result, the revisional applications are allowed in the manner and extent as indicated above. This order will govern both the revisional applications bearing No. C. R. R. 2080/04 and C. R. R. 1068/05. All interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. ( 19 ) CRIMINAL department is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Alipore and another copy to the learned Executive Magistrate 1st Court, Alipore for information and necessary action. Applications allowed.