JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has been convicted of a breach of a bye-law promulgated under sec. 139 of the Bengal Local Sell-Government Act. The material portion of the bye-law is as follows :--"No person shall on any road by means of any building without the permission of the Chairman or other authority named in the bye-law make or cause any encroachment." This rule was issued upon the ground that the construction of a hanging verandah does not amount to an encroachment. Upon a careful reading of the evidence in the case with the judgment of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate and the judgment of the District Magistrate in appeal, we are of opinion, however, that it was proved and found by both Courts that apart from the hanging verandahs, the Petitioner had dug foundations and erected a platform which actually encroached upon the surface of the road. The ground upon which the Rule was issued, therefore, fails. 2. The question whether a hanging verandah can in any circumstances be an encroachment, has however been argued before us. An encroachment is an unlawful gaining upon the right or possession of another man : Easton v. Richmond L. R. 7 Q. B. 69, 73 (1871). In the case of a District Board road, the right to the soil ordinarily rests with the owner of the land adjoining the road. But the public have an extended right of user in the road for the protection and control of which the District Boards were created. A hanging verandah therefore would be an encroachment, if it amounted to an unlawful gaining upon the right of user by the public. That right extends to all forms of traffic which have been usual or customary and also all that are reasonably similar or incidental thereto : [R. v. Mathias 2 F. & F. 570 (1861)]. The question whether a hanging verandah amounts to an encroachment would depend in each case upon the question whether in the particular circumstances it constituted an invasion of the public right of user as described above. 3. We may add that the public have a right of user not merely on the roadway, but also on the side lands attached to the road. 4. We have thought it right to express our opinion in this matter, as the point was argued at length and with considerable ability on behalf of the Crown. 3. We may add that the public have a right of user not merely on the roadway, but also on the side lands attached to the road. 4. We have thought it right to express our opinion in this matter, as the point was argued at length and with considerable ability on behalf of the Crown. The result is that the Rule is discharged.