JAGDISH PRASAD DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 18th March, 1982, passed by the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, in Criminal Case No. 12 of 1981, under section 13 of the Road Side Land Control Act, 1945, whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered the present applicant to remove the illegal constructions made by him within fifteen days from the date of the order, failing which the constructions were to be forcibly removed and the expenses incurred in so doing were to be realized from the applicant as fine.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the proceedings under section 13 of the U. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945, were started against the present applicant, Jagdish Prasad Dixit, on the complaint, dated 27-5-1977 by the Assistant Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD Fatehpur. According to the complainant, 220 feet on either side from the centre of Fatehpur-Banda- Sagar Road from mile 1 to 23 was declared controlled area for the purposes of section 13 of the U. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945, vide Notification No. 1108/C6 II/55, dated 30-4-1950 and 4033 M. S.-6 CLA/55, dated 19-9-1955. It was alleged that Jagdish Prasad Dixit, the present applicant, constructed a Pucca boundary wall shown as A B C D in the site plan (Ext. Ka-1) attached to the complaint (Ext. Ka-2) without the written permission of the Collector, Fatehpur, and, therefore, it was prayed to restore to the aforesaid breach to its original state or to bring it into conformity with the conditions as existed before the start of the aforesaid constructions. Notice was issued to the applicant who appeared and filed his written statement denying the allegations and raised various pleas. After having recorded the evidence of either party, the Magistrate found that Jagdish Prasad Dixit had constructed the pucca boundary wall on the controlled area and, therefore decided the case against him and passed the aforesaid order.

(3.) I have perused the judgment of the Magistrate, wherein the notification number and its date are mentioned. It is also in the cross-examination of Virendra Singh, P. W. D. Junior Engineer, that the notification could be filed by him. It is also in evidence that the notice-boards showing that the land on either side of the said road within .220 feet from the centre of the road is controlled area under the U. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945, were fixed at places on this road. It seemed to me highly unlikely that the notification number and date could be mentioned in the complaint and that the notice boards could be fixed at places on this road showing that 220 feet land on either side from the centre of the road was controlled area under the U. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945, without there being any publication of such a notification by the State Government. I, therefore, inquired about the said notification from the State Counsel who got the attested true copy of the said notification and publication from the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Temporary Division PWD, Fatehpur. Once a notification embodying declaration is produced before the court, the presumption can legitimately be drawn that all the procedure required by law to be folIJowed with regard to the said notification has, in fact, been followed. In this view of the matter, there appears to be no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant.