JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the conditional order dated 18.01.2023 and consequently the final order dated 11.05.2023 passed in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2023 which is a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. whereby and where under, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur directed the petitioner to remove the constructed wall by 19.05.2023 under Section 138 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as direction/prohibitory order under Section 143 of Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioner not to repeat the said action of construction of wall. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2023 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2023 and affirmed the said final order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent nos.4 to 6 of this writ petition filed a petition dated 18.11.2022 alleging that the writ petitioners have encroached a public land used as a road by constructing a boundary wall over the same causing disturbance and inconvenience to the residents of the locality. Consequent upon receiving the said application dated 18.11.2022, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur directed Executive Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur to carry out the spot investigation and the Executive Magistrate submitted a report on 06.01.2023, intimating therein that the local persons informed that there was a public road in the locality from 2004 and illegal construction was earlier made over the same by the petitioner no.1 which was removed in 2018, but the same has again been encroached by the petitioner by construction of boundary wall. The movement of four-wheeler vehicles has been hampered. The writ petitioner no.1 has constructed 12 feet long and 3 feet height wall. The movement of four-wheeler vehicles has been hampered. The writ petitioner no.1 has constructed 12 feet long and 3 feet height wall. Consequent upon the said report dated 06.01.2023, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur passed a conditional order dated 18.01.2023 directing the petitioners to either remove the construction wall within seven days or to appear before the court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur and to show cause as to why this order should not be enforced. 4. The writ petitioner no.1 contended before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur that despite being in lawful possession of the private property of the writ petitioners since 1998, some residents of the basti (hutments) had been attacking, disturbing and attempting to vacate the petitioners since 2005 and the writ petitioners have been harassed in many ways and means. During the proceeding of said Misc. Case No. 04 of 2023, the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur was directed to conduct a local enquiry to the same and file a report in terms of Section 139 (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Circle Officer, Jamshedpur submitted his report dated 22.03.2023 and intimated that the writ petitioners have constructed a 12 feet boundary wall and encroached upon the public land which was connecting road no. 1 and 2. It was also reported that the place of occurrence land encroached upon was a public land and it stood recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar. The writ petitioners also challenged the proceeding initiated under Section 133 Code of Criminal Procedure denying the existence of any pathway for public or anyone else over which the wall has been constructed. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur also recorded the oral testimony and also put some questions to the writ petitioner no.1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur passed final order dated 11.05.2023 affirming the conditional order and came to the conclusion that the land in question comes within the purview of public pathway and directed the petitioner to remove the constructed wall by 19.05.2023. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11.05.2023, the writ petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2023 before the Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, on being transferred, the said criminal revision was ultimately heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11.05.2023, the writ petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2023 before the Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, on being transferred, the said criminal revision was ultimately heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur dismissed the criminal revision by observing that the agreement to sell upon which the petitioners show their locus standi to institute the case does not create any right or title and as the land in question stands recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar so no interference with the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur was required and dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2023. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that both the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur committed grave illegality by coming to the conclusion on the basis of the report of the circle officer that the land in question stood recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar, without appreciating the fact that the land other than the Anabad Bihar Sarkar was also part of Appendix E/1 and Appendix E/1 is a consequence of the earlier schedule V of the Indenture Lease Deed dated 01.08.1985 that included raiyati land as well. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that both the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum did not meet the threshold requirement of public nuisance and passed an order of dispute between neighbours in exercise of the power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. which is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the said reports submitted by the Executive Magistrate and the circle officer were prepared behind the back of the writ petitioners hence, the said report ought not to have been used against the petitioners without giving any opportunity of being heard by the persons who had prepared the report. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that both the courts below have committed a grave illegality by losing sight of the fact that the entire case of the applicants in the proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was built on bald allegation without being supported by valid or public documents. Hence, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside as prayed for in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made by the writ petitioner in this writ petition. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that no illegality has been committed either by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur or the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 36 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Shri Vardichan & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 162 had the occasion to consider the word ‘nuisance’ as used under Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure. “Nuisance” ordinarily means as inconvenience, materially interfering with the ordinary comfort of a human being”. There cannot be any exact definition of the term “nuisance” as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra). 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners constructed a wall 12 feet in width and 3 feet in height over a land in respect of which the petitioners does not have any right, title and interest. The petitioners could not produce any documents of their ownership of the land in question. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners constructed a wall 12 feet in width and 3 feet in height over a land in respect of which the petitioners does not have any right, title and interest. The petitioners could not produce any documents of their ownership of the land in question. The undisputed fact remains that in the revenue record the land in question stands recorded in the name of “Anabad Bihar Sarkar.” 10. Keeping in view the summary nature of the proceeding and in the absence of any requirement of law that local investigation as envisaged under Section 139 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be made after notice to the parties to the proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that merely because no notice of such local investigation made by the circle officer, who is no doubt a public servant, his report cannot be discarded. The report goes to show that there was a road connected with road no.1 and road no.2 which was used by the public in general and the same has been obstructed by construction of the said wall of the writ petitioners. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur or the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum have not committed any illegality by considering that construction of a wall over a land which causes inconvenience to the people passing by the road is a “nuisance” and it is needless to mention that the natural corollary from the aforesaid fact is that such nuisance was to be removed. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court neither the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has committed any illegality in the orders dated 11.05.2023 passed in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2023 or the order dated 24.05.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2023 and the same does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed with liberty to proceed for civil remedy available in law. 13. The interim relief granted vide order dated 14.10.2024 is vacated.