S P JAISWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule issued by my Lord the Chief Justice at the instance of sections P. Jaiswal against the Stats and the District Magistrate, Karual, to show cause why the proceedings which have been started under Sections 452 and 147, Penal Code against the petitioner and fourteen others be not quashed under Sections 561a, Criminal P. C.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are that a house which is contiguous to the house of S, P. Jaiswal was originally owned by one Dr. Data Krishan of Karaal and his father Chandar Parkash. On 29-11-1951 this house was purchased by the Karnal Distillery Company, Limited, Karnal. This house bears No. RA-733. In his petition in this Court dated 14-10-1952 which is supported by an affidavit it is stated that this house "was in a serious state of disrepair, dilapidated and in a condition that the entire structure and its various portions were liable to collapse by operation of natural causes," and that the house is 50 years old and being in a dangerous state three notices had been issued by the Municipal Committee, Karnal requiring the owners to demolish the southern wall and some other portions of the house, and to the petition are attached three certified copies of the notices of the Municipal Committee. The first one was issued to Dr. Data krishan and is dated 21-11-1949, and the person issuing it is the Executive Officer of the municipal Committee, Karnal. The second one is dated 7-3-1950 undersections220, Punjab municipal Act and was issued to Dr. Data Krishan in which it is stated that the back wall of the house was in a very dangerous condition and that the owner had not carried out the notice which had been previously given and therefore the Doctor was called upon to pull down the wall and in default it would be pulled down by the Municipal Committee. The third notice similar to the first was dated 2-6-1950. It is not clear from this record as to what action, if any, was taken by the previous owners in regard to these notices, but on 8-9-1952 another notice by the Executive officer was issued to the Distillery Company through its Managing Director undersections113, municipal Act, calling upon the Company to pull down the wall within four days and in default action would be taken under the law.

(3.) RAGHBIR Singh and Ruldu Ram with their respective families were it is alleged in possession of this house, and on 11-9-1952 in the evening -- the exact time is not clear from the record or police diaries -- some labourers of the Company pulled down a portion of the southern wall. The petitioner has filed before me five photographs showing the relative positions of his house and of the house which the Company had purchased and was alleged to be in the possession of Raghbir singh and Ruldu Ram. These have been marked by me as 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' and 'e'.