ALLURI APPALASWAMY AND ALLURI RAMINAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parvatipur, confirming the convictions made and the sentences imposed 'on the petitioners by the Sub-Magistrate, Salur, in C.C. No. 1049 of 1954. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate convicted the petitioners under Section 313 (i) of the District Municipalities Act, or, in the alternative, for an offence punishable under section 447, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days each.

(2.) The facts are simple. Accused 1 is the father of accused 2 and 3. The Municipality owns a public well and a site appurtenant to it. It was originally owned by Allu Sanyasi Naidu, who made a gift of it to one Jangam Nathaniel. Nathaniel sunk a well in it and gifted it to the Salur Panchayat Board. In 1950, the Pan- chayat Board was converted into a Municipality and the well and site became vested in the Municipality. In September, 1953, the accused trespassed upon the site and put up a fence around it excluding the well. It was found that on account of the fence, access to the well from the public road on the north across the site has been cut off and now the only approach is by the T.D.L.A. Office road, which is only a private road. The Municipality issued a notice Exhibit P. 3, dated 14th Spetember, 1953, directing them to remove the fence but the accused by their reply set up adverse interests in the same. The Municipality removed the fence, but subsequently on 22nd June, 1954, the accused again trespassed on the site and put up a fence around it. The Municipality, therefore prosecuted them under section 127 of the District Municipalities Act read with section 313 (1) of that Act. Both the Courts found that the trespass was true and, rejecting the plea of limitation, convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ananthababu, contended that section 127 of the District Municipalities Act does not apply to the facts of the case and that, even if it applies, the complaint was barred by limitation under section 347 of the Act. Section 127 reads: "It shall not be lawful for any person except with permission duly given and obtained to enter upon land belonging to or vested in a municipal council along which a conduit or pipe runs, or upon any premises connected with the water-supply ".

(3.) It is said that, to come under that section, the entry should be upon any premises connected with water-supply, that the land trespassed upon is neither " premises " within the meaning of that section nor is it connected with water-supply and that water-supply in that section refers to the conduit or pipe mentioned therein and not to a well as in this case. What is the connotation of the word " premises " in the section? Does it mean only a building with land appurtenant thereto as the learned counsel for the petitioners contends or is it used in a more comprehensive sense as to take in even land ? The word is not defined in the Act. But as the same section uses "land" and also "premises", they cannot both mean the same. Either they represent different concepts altogether, or, the word 'premises' is used in a wider sense as to take in land also. Ramanatha Ayyar in his "Law Lexicon" says that the word premises is more comprehensive in its meaning than the words house, out-house or other building and includes land appurtenant thereto. He gives also the following other definitions. Premises is commonly used as comprising land, house and other matter. Either tenement or premises will be sufficient to include land. Premises in popular language strictly means building. The popular acceptation of the word premises according to Sweet's "Law Dictionary" and Wharton's "Law Lexicon" is thatit includes land. The word, though it is ordinarily used to connote a building or a land appurtenant to that building, is also used to mean land when it is being a part of a building. The context in which the word is used must therefore guide one to ascertain the meaning of that word. There is no particular reason why entry into a house connected with watersupply is covered by section 127 and entry on land connected with water-supply is excluded therefrom. Whether it is a house or land, it is the property of the Municipality connected with water-supply and it is, therefore, not lawful if any persons enter therein without permission. Therefore, the object of the section and the context in which the word is used also make it clear that the Legislature intended to give it a wider connotation than ordinarily it carries with it. I would therefore, hold that the word " premises " includes land also.