RAM DULARE Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two criminal revisions filed by Ram Dulare and Abdul Hasan involve similar questions of fact and law and may be conveniently dealt with together. Both the Petitioners have been convicted for offences Under Section 13 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 and the findings arrived at by the courts below show, that both of them have constructed houses within the controlled area of the Grand Trunk East Road with in the district of Allahabad.

(2.) THE argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioners is that since this road has been declared a national highway and vests in the Union, the State Government has ceased to have any concern with it and the notification issued by the State Government declaring a 'controlled area' on either side of this road under the provisions of the UP Roadside Land Control Act is without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE legal position has been made clear by the Amending Act, 1965, whereby the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act has been amended. "Road" has been defined as including national highway; but the proviso to Clause (1) of Section 3 shows that in the case of a national highway, the highway itself, shall not be deemed to be a controlled area. This means that the State Government can lawfully issue a notification under the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, declaring land on either side of the road upto a distance of 440 yards to be a controlled area, but the declaration will take effect only with regard to that portion of the area which is not included in the actual highway itself and the land appurtenant thereto. The land built upon by the Petitioners in the present case did not form part of the actual highway or of the land appurtenant thereto and consequently the State Government's declaration of the controlled area remained in full force in respect of their land.