Dr. Aftab H. Saikia: 1. Heard Mr. Y. P. Koushal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The impugned order dated 29.09.2008 was passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in file no. 4/Criminal Revision reversing and setting aside the order dated 18.06.2008, passed by learned District Magistrate, Jammu, under Section 133(I)(a) of Cr.P.C. in case no. DCJ/8Q/08-09/701, whereby Station House Officer, Trikuta Nagar, was directed to ensure implementation of the said order in letter and spirit and take necessary action against the violation of law and order and to personally supervise that the public pathway might not be obstructed in any way. 3. It is apparent on the face of record that when the order dated 18.06.2008 was passed, though respondent no.1 herein, was arrayed as Defiant party in the said proceeding, he was not heard and said order was passed in his absence. 4. Admitted position is that the land in question is a State land wherein the petitioner herein is claiming a right over the common path through the said land and the respondent no.1, on the other hand, is claiming for his right of possession over the land. 5. Pertinent to mention here that respondent no.1 as a petitioner, moved this High Court anticipating eviction from the Government land through WP(other) 219/2008 accompanied by CMP no. 1130/2008 and this Court by order dated 17.03.2008 while issuing notice to the official respondents protected the interest of respondent no.1 herein, to the effect that, if he was already in possession of the property, being the subject matter of the writ petition, should not be dispossessed except according to the procedure prescribed by law. 6. When the order dated 17.03.2008 by the High Court is being in force, respondent no. 1 herein being aggrieved by order dated 18.06.2008 passed by District Magistrate, as mentioned above, moved to learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, by preferring the instant revision petition and the Revisional Court while entertaining the revision petition allowed the same and after quashing the order dated 18.06.2008 held that the order under challenge itself was passed in clear violation of the High Court’s order dated 17.03.2008 and it was against the principles of natural justice, as the respondent no.1 was not given any opportunity of hearing. 7. 7. This Court, upon careful consideration of the impugned judgment and order and also having given due consideration to the arguments and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, is of the view that District Magistrate’s order dated 18.06.2008 was rightly set aside by the Revisional Court, inasmuch as, apparently no opportunity of hearing was given to respondent nos. 1 and 2. Above all, the same was passed in violation of High Court’s order dated 17.03.2008, which has been operating at the time of passing the order. 8. In view of the same, it is held that no illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in recording the findings in impugned judgment and order. 9. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this revision petition and the same stands dismissed.