1. This rule directed against an order made or purporting to be made under the provisions of Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code. The order was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur, on the 16th October of last year and was made at the instance of the Administration of a Railway, known as the Debru Sadiya Railway. It appears that at a station, known as Tin Sukhia, the Down Home Signal and the Down Outer Signal are plated on a curve in the Railway line and within this bend or curve has been built by the petitioner before us a masonry building which, by reason of the bend or curve, obstructs the view of the Home Signal from the Distant Signal. The order complained of by the petitioner directs him to remove this building in so far as it so obstructs the view of the one Signal from the other.
2. It has been found on evidence, and has not been disputed before us, that the building in question which wag completed some time in March last year is built on land which has been in the possession of the petitioner for a certain number of years. It has also been shown, and it is not disputed, that the site of this building is within the lease or palta granted to the petitioner by the Revenue Authorities of the Lakhimpur district some 20 years ago.
3. On these findings it cannot be disputed and, indeed, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway Authorities or the Crown is not prepared to contend, that the claim made by the petitioner in this case, that is to say, his right to erect this building of such height as he found necessary for the purpose of his business is one made in good faith. No doubt, the Railway Authorities claim that the site of the building is within the land belonging to the Railway and reserved for their use, and they further contend that the grant of this patta by the Revenue Authorities to the petitioner or his predecessor in--interest was a mistake made by the said Authorities But that does not affect the essential question or rather one of the essential questions in this case, namely, whether the claim put forward by the petitioner is one put forward in good faith. As we have already said, that it is a claim put forward in good faith cannot be disputed. Under the circumstances, (apart altogether from the question whether on the facts found the obstruction of the view of one Signal from another Signal, the obstructing obstacle being erected not on the Railway lice itself but on a site which must at present be regarded as belonging to the petitioner falls within the scope of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not), in view of the claim put forward in good faith by the petitioner the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained.
4. We, therefore, set aside his order and make this Rule absolute.