LALIT NARAIN DUBEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Lalit Narain Dubey has been convicted under Sec. 185/307 of the U.P. Municipalities Act of 1916 (Act No. II of 1916) for building a compound wall without the sanction of the Municipal Board of Aligarh and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10.00 and in default to two months' simple imprisonment. He filed a revision against his conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh which has been dismissed.

(2.) It has been contended before me on behalf of the applicant that Sec. 185 of the Municipalities Act is not applicable because the construction in dispute was not a building as contemplated in Sec. 183 of the Act. Sec. 185 of the Act provides that whoever begins, continues or completes the erection or re-erection of, or any material alteration in a building or part of a building or the construction or enlargement of a wall, without giving the notice required by Sec. 178, or in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 180, Sub-section (5), or of an order of the board refusing sanction or any written directions made by the board under Sec. 180 or any bye-laws; shall be liable upon conviction to a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Sec. 307 provides for the punishment of those persons who inspite of notice by the Municipal Board fail to comply with it and do not remove the disputed constructions. The word "building" as defined in Sec. 2(2) of the Act means a house, hut, shed or other roofed structure, for whatsoever purpose and with whatever material constructed, and a part thereof, but shall not include a tent or other such portable temporary shelter.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether a compound wall which is entirely detached from the house falls within the definition of building. In my opinion, it does not form part of a building because it is not part of a house, hut, shed or other roofed structure. I do not think that merely because the compound wall had been erected for the purpose of the safety of the compound and the building therein it becomes a part of that building. If it were so any wall in the compound even if it has no connection with the building itself will be called a part of the building. In Criminal Reference No. 3 of 1903 in the matter of Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Jogeswar Laha, VIII CWN 487 , it was held that a detached wall build of masonry is not a masonry building as defined by Sec. 3, Clause (25) of Act III of 1899 and as such the provisions of the Municipalities Act regulating constructions of buildings were not applicable to it. In the case of Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Binoy Krishna Bose, XVII CWN 84 , it was held that a boundary wall was not a building or part of a building and as such it was not liable to assessment of rates on the building. In view of the above decisions and also in view of the definition of 'building' in Sec. 2 of the UP Municipalities Act of 1916 I am of opinion that the boundary wall in respect of which the applicant has been convicted is not a building; or part of a building and as such Sec. 185 of the Act is not applicable. The conviction of the applicant in the circumstances cannot be maintained.