RAJA RAM Vs. SMALL TOWN COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this revision has arisen was instituted by one Raja Ram for challenging a notice issued to him by the Small Town Committee, Barnala asking him to remove a structure that he had built on a part of the public lane. The Plaintiff's allegations, inter alia, were that the site under the structure was not a part of the public lane and that the construction having existed for more than 20 years the Small Town Committee had no right to have it demolished by a summary procedure laid down in Section 172 of the Municipal Act. These points were found against the Petitioner and his suit was dismissed by both the Courts below. So far as the questions of fact are concerned it is conceded by the Petitioner's counsel that they cannot be taken on a revision petition. He, however, stresses two points which, according to him, are important. The first is that according to a law of the Lahore High Court when a construction is not found to be recent no action under Section 172 should be taken. The second is that the Municipal Committee or the Small Town Committee which took action against the Petitioner did not even exist at the time the construction, complained of was built. As regards the first point the ruling cited by the learned Counsel merely applies to criminal proceedings and I have no quarrel with the proposition that if a Municipal Committee sleeps over the matter for a fairly long time and takes no criminal proceedings against a person who raises a construction over a part of public street it is undesirable that he should be prosecuted after a lapse of long time. This, however, is not a case of criminal proceedings. Section 172 consists of two parts, the first relates to criminal proceedings and the second to the power of the Municipal Committee to call upon the owner of the construction to demolish it. In my opinion, the second part is quite distinct from the first and even though it may not be desirable to start criminal proceedings after a long time. I see no reason why a person who builds unlawfully upon a part of a public street should not be called upon to demolish the building provided that the construction is not so old as to give rise to a question of limitation regarding the possession of the site under the construction. As regards the second point, it was never raised in the Courts below and I am not prepared to allow it to be raised at this stage.

(2.) THE result is that the petition fails and is dismissed 'in limine'.