STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 12th September, 1967, passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Meerut, setting aside an order of conviction passed against Darshan Lal (respondent) Under Section 13 (1) (b) of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act (Act 10 of 1945) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are simple. In the year 1965 it was noticed that Darshan Lai had constructed a building close to Delhi-Mussoorie Road between miles 38 and 39. The Delhi Mussoorie Road had been duly notified under the provisions of the Act The construction made by the respondent was within controlled area declared Under Section 3 of the Act. By an order dated 8th November. 1965. Darshan Lai was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, Darshan Lai, however, did not remove the unauthorised construction after his conviction. On being prosecuted again Under Section 13 of the Act one year later, he took the plea that the building in question did not fall within the controlled area. That plea was negatived, because it had already been decided in an earlier case that the building was within the controlled area, as declared Under Section 3 of the Act. On the assumption that the non-removal of the unauthorised construction after conviction amounted to a continuing offence under the Act, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 10th April. 1967, convicted Darshan Lai (respondent) Under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and a further fine of Rs. 2/- only from the date of his previous conviction, i. e. , 8th November, 1965, to the.- date of his second conviction. This fine amounted to Rs. 1,038. On an appeal being filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, the conviction and sentence were set aside on the finding that there was no provision in the Act which made the non-removal of an unauthorised construction after the first conviction to be a continuing offence. The Government Appeal is directed against that order setting aside the order of conviction and sentence which had been passed against Darshan Lai by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut.

(3.) THE purpose of the Act was to control the haphazard construction of buildings along the roads which had been notified Under Section 3 of the Act. After the notification had been made nobody could make any construction or make or extend any excavation or lay out any means of access to the road in a controlled area, except with the permission of the Collector in writing (vide Section 5 of the Act ). Section 6 of the Act provided for an application for permission to build etc. and the grant or refusal of the said permission by the Collector. A right of appeal was given to any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector Under Section 6 of the Act (vide Section 7 of the Act ). Section 12 of the Act provided for a prohibition on use of any land as a brick field etc without any licence within a controlled area. Then came Section 13 of the Act. which reads as follows: