QUEEN Vs. BHYRO DAYAL SING AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 24th of October 1868, the Sub-Inspector of Bhabooah submitted a report to the Deputy Magistrate of that place, Baboo Jadu Nath Bose, stating that Chowdhry Bhyro Dayal Sing and others, proprietors of Mouza Siktee, had constructed a dam at the river Kookoornabee, in order to irrigate their lands to the inconvenience of the public, making it necessary for those wishing to cross the river to use a boat. The Sub-Inspector gave it as his opinion that, if the dam was removed, the river would become fordable, if not perfectly dry. The Deputy Magistrate called for an explanation from the proprietors of Siktee.

(2.) They stated that the dam had existed for upwards of a century; that it had caused no inconvenience to the public nor dispute; that the necessity of crossing the river in a boat, existed in consequence of the breaking down of the Government bridge.

(3.) The Deputy Magistrate remarked that "if, by the act of an individual, the public is put to inconvenience, and that act is against law, the plea of long usage cannot be held legal. No one can be allowed to erect a dam on a river for his own use and benefit." He ordered a notice to issue to the proprietors, directing them to restore the bund as heretofore; and stated that, if they did not do so, they would be amenable to punishment under section 283 of the Indian Penal Code. He adds--"if there be no bund, persons will be able to ford the river when the water is shallow."