MANAGER TIPUK TEA ESTATE Vs. RAM PRASAD RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to a complaint made by the Villagers of Village No. 1 and No. 2 of Rangajan Village alleging, inter alia, that Tipuk Tea Estate had erected two iron gates on the public road obstructing thereby the villages of the said two villages from using the said road, which had been functioning as a link road between the said two villages, on the one hand, and the National Highway, on the other, and also based on a police report submitted in this regard, learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia, passed an order, on 26. 06. 1996, in Case No. 33 of 1996, drawing proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and directed the Manager of the said tea estate to remove the gates 'so erected' or to show cause as to why this conditional order be not made absolute.

(2.) THE management of the said tea estate, then, filed their reply to the show cause notice aforementioned denying existence of the public road, their case being, in brief, thus : Non-existent right over the private path of the said tea estate was being sought to be raised by the complainants, for, no gate, as alleged, has been erected on any public path by the management of the said tea estate; what the management has done is to erect a barrier on their private road. The whole complaint has been fabricated by the first party No. 1, who sells illicit liquor within the said tea estate. The management has already provided its residents free passage through its tea estate and the villagers of the villages concerned have been using the road so provided by the management on the request of the President of Rangajan Gaon Panchayat.

(3.) AFTER the reply, so filed, by the second party, learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia, held, on 25. 11. 1996, a local investigation in the presence of both the parties, recorded the statements of two witnesses and also noted his findings to the effect that he had found that the said tea estate had constructed iron bars obstructing the entry of vehicles. By the order, dated 25. 11. 1996, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia, also fixed the proceeding for hearing on 10. 12. 1996. It is this order, which stands impugned in the present revision, on the ground that holding of the local investigation, recording of the statements of the witnesses and the findings of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia, as indicated hereinbefore, were all contrary to law and the scheme of Section 137 read with Section 139 of the Code.