Dhansar Coal Co. Ltd. vs Babu Lal Agarwala

Agarwala, J.—The opposite party are the lessees of the minerals under plot No. 381 in mouza Dhansar. Commencing within this plot, and running diagonally in a north-westerly direction is a road which continues in the same direction after leaving the boundaries of plot No. 381. Within the plot and across this road the opposite party have put up a gate.

This has led to the present proceedings. The petitioners are the owners of an adjoining colliery and claim that the road is a public one over which they have the right to cart their coal. This is denied by the opposite party who maintain that the road is a private one. As the dispute was likely to cause a breach of the peace, a proceeding was started u/s 145, Criminal P.C., but after written statements had been filed, the proceedings were changed into the proceedings u/s 147 and fresh written statements were called for.

The trial Court found that the disputed portion of the road, namely the portion running south-east from the gate is the private road of the opposite party. On that finding, the appropriate order to be passed was a declaration that the road was not a public road and a prohibition directed against the petitioners going on the road. Instead of that however, the learned Magistrate declared that the road was in the opposite party''s possession and prohibited all disturbance of such possession until eviction in due course of law.

In form therefore, the order was one u/s 145(6), Criminal P.C. There is however no substance in the contention that the petitioners have been in any way prejudiced by the order being in this form.

It was next contended by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate, having decided that the oral evidence in the case was unreliable and that his conclusions would have to be based on public documents, should have accepted the various maps which have been filed in the case as showing that the portion of the road south-east of the gate is public.

It is clear however that on the record there is less ambiguous evidence than that provided by the maps as to the nature of this road. Amongst other evidence, there is that of officers who have inspected the road and who have come to the conclusion that the road is a private one.

I therefore see no ground on which to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

The rule is discharged.