LAWS(ORI)-1956-3-4

RAJBALLAV MISRA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE

Decided On March 14, 1956
Rajballav Misra Appellant
V/S
Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 385 -A of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, passed by a First Class Magistrate of Khurda, but reducing the sentence of fine to Rs. 50/ - and to a further fine of Rs. 2/ - per day until the offending structure is removed.

(2.) THE prosecution Case is that the Petitioner constructed a temporary shed 011 a site belonging to the Bhubaneswar Notified Area Committee without obtaining the permission of the authorities. This unauthorised structure was noticed by the Executive Officer of the Notified Area Committee who issued a notice to him on the 22nd February, 1954, directing him under Section 278 -A of the Orissa Municipal Act to demolish the unauthorised construction by the 25th of that month. The Petitioner however sent a reply dated 25.2.54 stating that he had approached the Administrator of the New Capital, Bhubaneswar by a petition to permit him to keep the temporary shed for some time and requested the Executive Officer to drop the matter. But the Executive Officer rejected his request and sanctioned the prosecution of the Petitioner on 9 -3 -54.

(3.) THE Petitioner' main defence in the lower Courts was that he did not construct a new shed, but that there was an old shed at the spot belonging to one R.A. Kohili, which was purchased by the Petitioner from Kohili on 23 -11 -54, and that he subsequently repaired the shed for the purpose of using it temporarily for storing his goods until the erection of a permanent furniture shop later on. He led evidence to show his purchase of the structure from R.A. Kohili and has also examined some defence witnesses to show that R.A. Kohili constructed the temporary shed in 1949 and that as there was some damage to the shed, the Petitioner repaired the same. It is admitted that no permission of the Notified Area Committee was taken for altering or repairing the shed in question.