ABDUL KARIM KASAM VIRANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision application filed by the accused challenges the order dated December 14, 1972, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolaba, confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, granting the complainant's -application requesting the Court to visit and inspect the alleged construction work carried on by the accused.

(2.) THE complainant is the Controller of Unauthorised Construction, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, Thana. On October 25, 1972, he filed a private complaint with the Magistrate against the accused making the following allegations. The accused who is the owner and occupant of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 116/2 plus 5a in village Kalamboli, Taluka Panvel, undertook and carried out the unauthorised development of the said land without the permission of the competent authority. This unauthorised development was detected by the officers of the CIDCO in an incomplete state on December 22, 1971, and the accused was served with a notice dated April 12, 1972, requiring him to discontinue the unauthorised development. However, the accused continued the unauthorised development and completed the work of the building after the service of the notice. Thereafter, on August 29, 1972, the complainant issued a notice to the accused under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, requiring him to demolish the said structure. However, the accused disregarded the requisition notice and failed to demolish the construction. Thereafter, the complainant personally inspected the unauthorised construction on October 7, 1972, when it was noticed that the structure of the main building was? almost complete, although the wooden frames of windows were not fitted with glasses. The building was also not painted. It was found locked and was not. brought under use. He also found that there was no water connection or electric power installed. On these facts, it was alleged that the accused had committed an offence under Section 53 (6) (a) read with Section 53 (7) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.

(3.) ON the same day, the complainant also filed an application requesting the learned Magistrate to have local inspection of the construction in question. In this application, it was alleged that; the accused was taking a false plea that only internal repairs had been carried out which did not require permission under the Act and that he was falsely alleging that the building was already under use for which it was constructed. The complainant requested the Court to have local inspection of the construction work to verify the truth, as it would also reveal the condition in which the building then existed. It was further alleged in the application that the building was in the stage of finalisation and was neither occupied nor brought under use, and this could be verified by local inspection by the Court,