JUDGMENT AND ORDER : MITALI THAKURIA, J. Heard Mr. A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the legality and validity of impugned order dated 23.08.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia in Case No. 49/2022, whereby the case was dismissed which was filed by the present petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he preferred a petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on 18.02.2022 before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Margherita stating inter alia that he has been possessing a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 10 Lecha by the side of a pucca Bye Lane, which is a public road, and he has been possessing the said plot of land since 10.01.2021. But, 2 (two) months prior to lodging of the said proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the respondent herein forcibly erected a bamboo gate at the entrance/entry point of the said public Bye Lane from the main Segunbari-Makumkilla Road and thereby illegally created a blockage/obstruction resulting nuisance to general public including the present petitioner. The petitioner as well as his family members and the workers used to go to the said plot of land by using the Bye Lane without any objection and obstructions from any corner till the opposite party had blocked the road by putting a bamboo gate in the entry point of the bye lane preventing the petitioner and others from using the bye lane for their ingress and egress. It is also stated that the said Bye Lane is a public road which was constructed by the Government of Assam out of public fund and thus the respondent had no right to cause any short of obstructions in the user of the said public Bye Lane by the public in general including the present petitioner. 4. It is also stated that the said Bye Lane is a public road which was constructed by the Government of Assam out of public fund and thus the respondent had no right to cause any short of obstructions in the user of the said public Bye Lane by the public in general including the present petitioner. 4. It is further contended that prior to lodging of the said case, the petitioner requested the respondent to remove the said blockade, but instead of removing the said blockade, the respondent warned the petitioner to refrain from using the said Bye Lane and for which, the petitioner had to approach the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Margherita for drawing up a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. directing the respondent to remove the blockade from the said Bye Lane for the use of general public. The said petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was registered as Case No. 02/2022 and it was made over to the Executive Magistrate for disposal. But, the Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and finally, on the basis of the prayer of the petitioner, it was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia, which was renumbered as Case No. 49/2022, and thereafter, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia, on being satisfied considering the urgency of the matter, drawn up a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. vide Order dated 13.06.2022 and directed the opposite party/respondent herein to remove the blockade/obstructions put by him on the entrance point of the said Bye Lane positively by 20.06.2022 or to appear before the Court on 21.06.2022 at about 1.00 a.m. to file objection, if any, and also to show cause as to why the order should not be made absolute and issued notice accordingly. The notice was duly served on the respondent within time, but in spite of the said Conditional Order dated 13.06.2022, the respondent did not remove the blockade/obstructions. 5. Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia and admitted the construction of the said Bye Lane by PWD but at the same time denied that the Bye Lane is a public land and also sought for time to file objection. 5. Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia and admitted the construction of the said Bye Lane by PWD but at the same time denied that the Bye Lane is a public land and also sought for time to file objection. However, instead of submitting the written objection, the respondent approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margherita by way of a criminal revision petition, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 07(3)/2022, assailing the Conditional Order dated 13.06.2022 and also prayed for stay of the further proceeding in Case No. 49/2022, pending before the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia. The said revision petition was though admitted, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margherita did not pass any order on stay and thereafter the respondent preferred a petition praying for transfer of the case before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. But, subsequently, the said transfer petition was withdrawn. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2023, the said revision petition was dismissed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margherita directed both the parties to appear before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia on or before 04.02.2023 for further proceeding with an observation that the Conditional Order dated 13.06.2022 does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety and correctness. But, instead of appearing before the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia, as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margherita in said criminal revision petition, the respondent preferred a criminal petition before this Court, which was numbered as Criminal Petition No. 211/2023, only with a view to delay the matter. However, subsequently, the said criminal petition was withdrawn on 03.03.2023 and finally the respondent appeared before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia and file his written statement on 18.03.2023. Accordingly, both the parties adduced evidence before the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia and very surprisingly, in absence of the present petitioner or his engaged counsel, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia passed the order dated 23.08.2024 in the most mechanical manner and dismissed the case of the present petitioner, which was numbered as Case No. 49/2022. 6. Hence, on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia in Case No. 49/2022, vide order dated 23.08.2024, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for setting aside the same. 7. 6. Hence, on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia in Case No. 49/2022, vide order dated 23.08.2024, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for setting aside the same. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 is bad in law which was passed in gross violation of established procedure of law. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia passed order without applying his judicial mind and also did not appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective. He further submitted that the impugned final order dated 23.08.2024 was passed bypassing the statutory requirement under Section 137 Cr.P.C. and the same suffers from gross irregularity which is not sustainable under the eye of law and accordingly, he prayed for setting aside of the said impugned order dated 23.08.2024. 8. He further submitted that Section 133 Cr.P.C. provides speedy and summary remedy in case of urgency where there is danger to public interest or public health etc. is concerned and the very idea is that if immediate steps are not taken, irreparable injury to the public will ensue. Further he submitted that in the instant case, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia committed error in proceeding under Section 138 Cr.P.C. where on first appearance of the opposite party, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia instead of proceeding under Section 137 Cr.P.C., proceeded in the matter giving the opposite party time filing his formal written statement. If the respondent is allowed to take the advantage of the final order of dismissal of the proceeding, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the general public including the petitioner for their ingress and egress. He further submitted that during the proceeding of the present petition, the respondent had already constructed a permanent blockade by putting a concrete pillars/walls and iron gate replacing the earlier bamboo gate put by them, which is already intimated to this Court by way of an additional affidavit. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the interest of the general public at large, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia had dismissed the petition, which is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. Mr. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the interest of the general public at large, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia had dismissed the petition, which is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. Mr. Sharma further submitted that while passing the Conditional Order dated 13.06.2022, it was held by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia that the road in question was used by the general public and the respondent had created nuisance by obstructing the public Bye Lane by putting a bamboo gate in the entry gate and subsequently, during the pendency of the case, the respondent had put the iron gate with permanent pucca pillar. More so, the revision petition filed by the respondent before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margherita against the Conditional Order dated 13.06.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia was also dismissed with a direction to the present respondent to appear before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia to contest the case. But, surprisingly, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia had passed the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 in a very mechanical and arbitrary manner and dismissed the petition filed by the present petitioner, which was registered under Section 133 Cr.P.C., and accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1, submitted in this regard that the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia had rightly passed the order dated 23.08.2024 after considering the evidence on record and the documents filed by both the parties at the time of adducing evidence. It has already been held by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia that there was no public road through the said land in question and further it is held that the plot of land in question is situated within the boundary of the respondent/opposite party and the Circle Officer, Margherita Revenue Circle had already issued the possession certificate in favour of the respondent and there exists no public road. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that during the evidence, it also revealed that the residential house including the tea plantation situated at the backside of the boundary wall and there is no public road for the use of general public. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that during the evidence, it also revealed that the residential house including the tea plantation situated at the backside of the boundary wall and there is no public road for the use of general public. He further submitted that it is an admitted position that the entire plot of land, including the road under question, was a government land and the respondent has already been settled with the said government plot of land. Further he submitted that the road as well as the entire land in question is under the possession of the respondent and after the settlement of the land in his favour, he is using the same and there is no eminent danger of any public tranquility or peace for removal of any obstructions as alleged by the present petitioner. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that only remedy is to approach the civil forum if there is any dispute in regards to the possession of the land, which was admittedly a government land. 11. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the Conditional Order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia dated 13.06.2022, whereby the respondent was directed to remove the blockade/obstruction alleged to have been erected in the entrance point of the bye lane in question. It is seen that the said order was passed ex parte on the basis of the documents filed by the present petitioner and also considering the reply on the RTI Application, wherein it was found that the road was also constructed by the PWD Department. It is further seen from the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides that the said land in question was admittedly constructed by the PWD Department, but at the time of recording of evidence and the documents produced by both the parties, it was found by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia that the entire land in question, including the Bye Lane, was a government land and the same was settled in favour of the respondent and he is possessing the entire settled land, including the Bye Lane. In that context, it is seen that the Circle Officer, Margherita Revenue Circle had already issued possession certificate vide No. MRC-08/2008 & 22/312, dated 05.10.2022, in favour of the respondent to possess the land in question including the said Bye Lane and it is also reported that there is no existence of any public road. 12. It is further seen that the petitioner also failed to produce any evidence or document that the road in question is used by the general public at large. Thus, it is seen that while recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia found that there is no dispute in regards to possession of the said land in question as well as the tea plantation, which is situated at the backside of the said boundary wall of the respondent, and also there found no eminent danger of any public peace and tranquility and hence, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia passed the final order dated 23.08.2024, hereby rejecting the petition filed by the present petitioner, which was initially registered under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 13. In view of the entire discussions made above, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia while passing the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, in Case No. 49/2022, and accordingly the same stands upheld. Consequently, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost(s). 14. In terms of above, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of.