JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, labelled as a criminal writ petition, has been filed for following reliefs:- " i. the FIR No. 2064/35 dated 18.10.2017 (Annex. 5) in respect of Khasra No. 410, 416, 419 situated in Van Khand, Gram Abu No. 2 of Wild Life Sanctuary be kindly ordered to be quashed; ii. the impugned order passed by Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), Mount Abu on 26.12.2017 (Annex. 34) be kindly declared illegal and ordered to be quashed and set aside with all consequential directions; The consequential order dated 02.01.2018 (Annex. 38) passed by Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), Mount Abu may kindly be quashed and set aside; iii. The respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject land and the respondents may further be restrained from demolishing the construction made by the petitioner over the subject land. iv. Any other appropriate order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court considers proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners; v. Costs throughout may kindly be awarded to the petitioners" 2. Mr. Jasol, learned counsel for the Forest Department raised an objection that the petition in hand cannot be entertained as a criminal writ petition, because, no offence has been alleged against the petitioners. He argued that the proceedings initiated under Section 34A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1972") have been challenged which are not criminal in nature. 3. Mr. Jasol, further raised an objection about maintainability of the instant petition highlighting that assailing the order dated 26.12.2017, (Annex. 34), the petitioners had already preferred two writ petitions. He pointed out that both of them had been withdrawn by the petitioners on 08.04.2022. And thus, another petition cannot be maintained. 4. Mr. Maheshwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rathi invited Court's attention towards the notice dated 18.10.2017 (Annex. 5) and pointed out that the respondents have not only treated purported encroachment to be an offence but have also registered an FIR and since, the FIR has been registered, the petitioners are justified in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging these proceedings under the caption of "Criminal Writ Petition". 5. 5) and pointed out that the respondents have not only treated purported encroachment to be an offence but have also registered an FIR and since, the FIR has been registered, the petitioners are justified in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging these proceedings under the caption of "Criminal Writ Petition". 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. A perusal of the notice dated 18.10.2017 (Annex. 5) at the first flush gives an impression that an offence under the provisions of the Act of 1972 is being investigated. But a careful reading thereof, reveals that the proceedings, which are being undertaken by the Forest Department are that of removal of encroachment, as per Section 34A of the Act of 1972. 7. Section 34A of the Act of 1972 is reproduced hereinunder: "34A. Power to remove Encroachment (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests may,- (a) evict any person from a sanctuary or National Park, who unauthorisedly occupies Government land in contravention of the provisions of this Act; (b) remove any unauthorised structures, buildings, or constructions erected on any Government land within any sanctuary or National Park and all the things, tools and effects belonging to such person shall be confiscated, by an order of an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Conservator of Forests: Provided that no such order shall be passed unless the affected person is given an opportunity of being heard. (2) The provisions of this section shall apply notwithstanding any other penalty which may be inflicted for violation of any other provision of this Act." 8. A perusal of the above quoted provision and impugned notice dated 18.10.2017, leaves no room for ambiguity that the proceedings being undertaken by the respondents are that of removal of encroachment. Section 34A does not envisage any punishment or fine; it does not have any traces of offence or trappings of criminal nature. The culmination of the proceedings under Section 34A of the Act of 1972 would entail removal of encroachment on forest land but it would not attract any fine or punishment/imprisonment. Such being the position, the criminal writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 9. The culmination of the proceedings under Section 34A of the Act of 1972 would entail removal of encroachment on forest land but it would not attract any fine or punishment/imprisonment. Such being the position, the criminal writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 9. That apart, the petitioners have already filed two writ petitions being SBCWP Nos. 18564/2018 and 18569/2018, challenging the very same order dated 26.12.2017, which is impugned in the petition in hands. Both the petitions have been withdrawn by the petitioners. 10. In view of what has been noted above, this Court finds itself to be ceased of the jurisdiction to entertain present petition and pronounce upon the grounds raised herein. Besides this, there is hardly any reason to interfere, as the petitioners themselves have come with a specific case that the land in question, on which they have raised construction, is a part of the forest land. 11. The petition is dismissed and interim order passed by this Court on 18.02.2019 is vacated. 12. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.