T.K. SUBRAMANIAM Vs. COMMISSIONER SALEM MUNICIPALITY, SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner questions the propriety or correctness of his conviction for the offence of failure to remove the encroachments under S. 182 (1) and 313 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, (Act v. of 1920) herein after referred to as the Act).

(2.) FOUR witnesses were examined to prove the prosecution case against the petitioner. P.W. 1, is the Building Inspector of the Salem Municipality from 1065. From 1960 onwards, he has been the surveyor. P.W. 1 knew the petitioner. The building concerned in this case is in the Bazar street Salem. The said building bars door No. 395 and is situate in T.S. No. 781. The Town Surveyor booked some encroachments in the Bazaar Street and the connected file was referred to P.W. 1. Therefore, he inspected the site with the help of sketches, and notices, issued under S: 18 Sub -S. (1) and (2) of the Act. P.W. 1 verified the measurements given in the sketches in the file and found them to be correct. The reports of encroachment prepared by the Town Surveyor with the plan was produced. The report with sketch relating to the platform in front of the building is marked as Ex. P -1. Ex. P -2 pertains to the report about the steps. The report on the rolling shutter is Ex. P -3. Ex. P -4 relates to the R.CC. sun -shades. Ex. P -5 relates to another sun shade put up on the rear side of the building. P.W. 1 verified the measurements in Ex. P -1 to P -5 and found them to be tallying with reference to the survey records. P.W. 1 found that the portions shown in red colours in the sketches on the reverse of Ex. P -1 to P -5 were encroachments on T.S. No. 781, the street poramboke vested in the Municipality. Ex. P -1 shows the encroachment by means of platform, measuring 14 1/2' x 3' 3" in front of the building owned by the petitioner. This is shown in the sketch Ex. P -1 (a) of P.W. 1. The encroachment by steps, measuring 14' x 2 3/4' is shown in Ex. P -2 and the relevant sketch is Ex.P -2 (A). Encroachment to the extent of 12 3/4' x 1' by means of rolling shutter, covered by Ex. P -3 is shown in the sketch of Ex. P -3 A.P. W. 1 proved Ex. P -4 A and P -5 A also, the sketches relating to the R, CC sun shades. His further evidence is the notices of encroachment were issued by the Municipality and were signed by the Town Planning Officer for the Commissioner. The notice relating to Ex. P -1 and P -1A is Ex. P -1 B. It is the office copy of the notice duly attested by independent witnesses for affixture. Notice served by affixture and attested by witnesses in relation to the rolling shutter, covered by Ex. P -3 is Ex. P -3 B. Notice relating to the sun shade in the front is marked as Ex. P -5 B.

(3.) THE plea of the petitioner is that the encroachments fall within the limits of his private land. The said building belongs to himself and his two brothers. There are suits between them and the Municipality for the last 20 years. A civil suit regarding the encroachments in question has been filed in the District Munsif's Court, one day later than the date of the complaint in this case; but no independent witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner.