GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 2 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 1:

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. H. Das for the petitioners. Also heard learned counsel Mr. A. Ganguly for the respondents.

2. The petitioners No. 1. Sri Prasanta Rajkhowa, 2. Sri Lalit Rajkhowa, 3. Sri Leela Das, 4. Sri Pradip Sharma, 5. Sri Cheni Gowala have filed this application under Section 438/442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Misc Case No. 130/2023.

3. Sri Bhadeshwar Das, Sri Madhab Das, Sri Tapan Rajkhowa, Sri Soma Rajkhowa, Sri Bhodia Das, Sri Leela Das and Sri Rajib Das, are arrayed as respondents in this case.

4. An FIR was lodged by the respondents on 24.07.2023 with the police at Bihpuria police station with allegation that there are two beels (water body) between the embankment of E & D and the villagers were maintaining the beels in the name of Harimandir for many years. In the year 2018, a committee was constituted by the villagers to maintain the aforementioned beels. The petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 are the Secretary and President, respectively, of the committee. The committee and the two beels are named as Sudhakantha Dr. Bhupen Hazarika Meen Palon Committee. The beels are covered by 25-26 Bighas of land approximately.

5. It is submitted that the intent of the villagers were to be economically stable from the income of the aforementioned beels. After formation of the committee i.e., during the tenure of the earlier Government, an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs was granted in favour of the aforementioned beels but it has been stated that the accused No. 1 and 2, named in the FIR, cleaned only one beel and misappropriated the remaining amount at the time when they were in charge as Secretary and President of the committee. Furthermore, the accused No. 1 started a piggery near the beels and the waste of the fodder was drained into the beel. When the villagers raised objection, the accused verbally abused the villagers, uttering obscene words, at the behest of accused No. 3.

6. The villagers by contributing Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per person managed to clean the other beel for pisciculture in the said beel, but after a few days, the petitioner No. 1 allegedly, closed the entrance of the beel by constructing a bamboo fence and a boundary wall. Thus, the villagers and their cattle were restrained from entering into the beel and from drinking water from the beel.

7. It is further submitted that as per the rule of the committee, there ought to be a meeting every month to apprise the villagers about the beel, but since 2018, not a single meeting has been held. This impelled the villagers to lodge a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn deputed Jintu Sharma, an ADC to inquire into the matter.

8. During the ongoing inquiry, the petitioner No. 1 and 2 in cohorts with the others formed a new committee which includes only their relatives as well as personal tractor driver and other interested persons, without the knowledge of the villagers. The petitioner No. 4 was selected as the President and the petitioner No. 5 was selected as a Member of the said committee.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqDAWbHorAPLSAILBUmNtqoNedbNd4nNM7iwSMZwbs82K&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./436/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010231932024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.