JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral).:- The applicant/complainant has filed the application under Section 378 sub-section (4), Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for grant of special leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 18.12.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. 2. It transpires that a criminal complaint was filed by the applicant against 12 persons, who allegedly committed criminal trespass and caused damage to the property of the applicant. The complaint was filed for commission of offences under Sections 448, 452, 427, 34, 149, Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the officials could have taken action only in accordance with law. Due process was not followed and, therefore, the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the action taken by the officials in removing the alleged construction/encroachment. 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. The trial court has considered the fact that the applicant could not bring any evidence to court to show ownership of the applicant over the property, which is said to have been raised by the respondents. Rather, it has been noticed by the trial court that the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.125 of 2002 entitled ‘Rikhi Ram vs. Karnail Singh and others’ in the court having competent jurisdiction in Ambala, claiming himself to be the owner of the land in dispute. The application of the applicant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of interim injunction, was dismissed vide order dated 19.7.2000 (Exhibit D-13). It has been recorded that the applicant had miserably failed to prove his ownership with regard to the disputed property. It has also been observed therein that the applicant had encroached upon public property. The trial court has also taken note of the fact that the appeal filed by the applicant had been dismissed vide order dated 14.8.2000 (Exhibit D-14). 6. Resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat of Village Dhanora have been brought on record by DW-3 Balram, Gram Sachiv. The villagers of the village had moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner for removal of the encroachment from the main street. In this regard, vide notice dated 24.6.2000 (Exhibit D-1), the Deputy Commissioner directed the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer to get the encroachment removed and submit compliance report. The villagers of the village had moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner for removal of the encroachment from the main street. In this regard, vide notice dated 24.6.2000 (Exhibit D-1), the Deputy Commissioner directed the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer to get the encroachment removed and submit compliance report. The encroachment was removed and compliance report was sent to the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 28.7.2000 (Exhibit D-2). 7. The aforesaid documents having come on record, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment of acquittal is based on relevant considerations and facts. The applicant could not prove his ownership over the disputed property. Rather, the respondents have brought out the facts on record that the applicant had encroached upon public property, which encroachment had been removed by the officials under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner. The action was initiated on the asking of the residents of the village. The witnesses could not name the specific role ascribed to the accused-respondents. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances emanating from the impugned judgment collectively, I am of the considered opinion that no ground for interference is made out and no reasons have been shown to grant special leave to appeal against acquittal. Dismissed. ———————