1. The dispute in this case is between the petitioners and the Local Board. The Local Board''s case was that the petitioners had encroached on
land at the side of a road, which belonged to the Local Board and that as a result of such encroachment the. Local Board drain which ran by the
side of the road had been blocked. Both the Courts have found in favour of the Local Board holding upon the evidence, that the Local Board had
been in possession of the land encroached upon by the petitioners for some 12 years and an order u/s 133 has accordingly been passed.
2. The only question that arises is whether under the circumstances this order was rightly made. It is admitted by both parties who are before us
that according to the Settlement Record, the land alleged to have been encroached on by the petitioners, is the petitioners'' land. Accordingly, the
only question that really arises is whether this is reliable evidence within the meaning of Section 139A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If it is a
reliable evidence within the meaning of the words of that section then clearly the Criminal Court should have stayed the proceedings and left the
parties to have the matter decided in a Civil Court. In our opinion, once the Settlement Record was produced showing that this land was the
petitioners'' whether that record is right or wrong the Criminal Court should have stayed the proceedings and left the parties to have their rights
decided in a Civil suit.
3. In this view we made the Rule absolute.
