RAM GOPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected references in which by a common order, the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, has recommended that the revisions filed by the applicants before him be allowed and their convictions and sentences be set aside. Jamuna Prasad and Ram Gopal, who were revisionists before the learned Sessions Judge, were in separate trials convicted under section 13 of the U. P. Roadside Control Act. 1945 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act) and each one of them sentenced to a fine of Rs, 50.

(2.) BY a Notification dated 21st February, 1953 issued under section 3 (i) of the U. P. Act, the State Government had undisputedly declared land lying within distance of 220 yards from the Central line of the Meerut-Bareilly Road as 'controlled area'. Jamuna Prasad denied the allegations and stated that the shop in dispute belonged to his father and he had no concern with it. Ram Gopal's defence was that the shop was old and had existed since prior to the merger of the Rampur state in 1949 and that he had made no new constructions.

(3.) IT was contended that though by Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, U. P. Act No. 6 of 1955 (to be referred hereinafter as the amending Act) the definition of the expression 'Road' as occurring in section 2 (6) of the U. P. Act was amended so as to include National Highways, the proviso added to Section 3 by the same amending Act is to the effect that Provided that in case of a National Highway, the Highway itself shall not be deemed to be a controlled area and consequently since the disputed constructions were in existence on land appurtenant to a national highway, they could not be held to have been made within a controlled area. The controversy before the learned Sessions Judge consequently was as to whether land appurtenant to Delhi-Bareilly-Lucknow Road was also excluded by the proviso to section 3 (i) of the U. P. Act added to it by amending Act 1965 from the perview of that section.