JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.PC praying for quashing of the order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh in Assam Land Grabbing Case No. 4/2016 as well as the order passed by the same Court dated 05.10.2016 accepting the final report. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they own and possess Dekhari Tea Estate since 1990 comprising 128 bighas, 1 kathas and 4 lechas of land covered by the Patta No. 124 and Dag No. 20, 21, 22, 231, 232, 233, 236 to 242 situated at Moran Revenue Circle, Dibrugarh district. The petitioners filed a complaint under the aforesaid Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act alleging that the land in their possession was grabbed by the respondent No. 2. 3. On receipt of the FIR with such an allegation by the petitioners, the Moran Police Station investigated into it and the investigation resulted in final report submitted to the Court. 4. According to the Police, no offence was found to have been committed, during investigation, and whatever, he found during investigation is that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. 5. It appears from the Annexure-4 annexed with the petition that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh accepted the Final Report submitted by the Police without notice to the informant. Annexure-5 annexed with this criminal revision petition makes it appear that the informant moved an application before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh with a prayer for review of the order dated 05.11.2016 under the provisions of Section 114 , Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also read with Section 8(4) read with Section 6 of Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. 6. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, while rejecting the prayer for review, vide his order dated 23.02.2017, also observed, inter alia, that the informant did not mention as to the time when the cause of action for the matter arose and the name of the principal office of the respondent No. 2. 7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mrs. S Jahan, appearing for the respondent No. 1, submits that in the Final Report itself the Police have indicated that notice was sent to the respondent No. 2. 7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mrs. S Jahan, appearing for the respondent No. 1, submits that in the Final Report itself the Police have indicated that notice was sent to the respondent No. 2. In the order dated 23.03.2017 also the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge referred to the report of the investigation that it was communicated to the informant. 8. It is not clear either from the statement of the Investigating Officer in the final report or from the order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, as to whether the notice said to have been issued was received by the petitioners. That apart, when the petitioners approached the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge for review of the order dated 23.03.2017, accepting the Final Report it meant that they moved the Court because they did not receive the notice. 9. From a reading of the instant petition before this Court, this Court is convinced that although notice might have been issued, it was not served upon the petitioners and had it been served, the petitioners would have definitely contested the Final Report otherwise they would have not approached the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge or this Court by way of this petition. Otherwise also, if the Final Report is disposed of after hearing the petitioners, it will meet the ends of justice and the allegations/irregularities will be done away with. 10. The order dated 05.10.2106 (Annexure-4) and the order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-6) passed in Assam Land Grabbing Case No. 04/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh are hereby set aside. 11. In view of the above, I propose to dispose of this criminal revision petition with a direction that the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh will ensure issuance of notice to the petitioners and will take a decision in respect of acceptance or otherwise of the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Agency. 12. With the above observations and directions, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of.