ONKARDAS KISHOREDAS WANI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision which raises a question under the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. III of 1901). The petitioner is the owner of a house in Nandurbar. The western wall of his house was in a bad state of repair, and the Municipality of Nandurbar issued a notice to the petitioner to take it down. The petitioner thereupon removed the wall and applied to the Municipality for permission to rebuild. That application was properly made under Section 93(1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The Municipality gave the permission subject to the condition that the wall should be set back a certain specified distance from the street. The petitioner, however, reconstructed the wall without complying with this condition and was prosecuted for so doing under Section 96(5) of the Act, was convicted and fined Rs. 10. He appealed to the District Magistrate of West Khandesh and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner now applies in revision.

(2.) The question turns primarily, I think, on the application of Section 91A(i) of the Bombay District Municipal Act. That section was incorporated by amendment of the original Act, for the first time in the year 1914 and as originally drafted the added section provided that: It shall be the duty of every Municipality to prescribe a line on each side of every street within the Municipal District and the Municipality may from time to time prescribe a fresh line in substitution for any line so prescribed.

(3.) Then Sub-section (3) provided: Except under the provisions of Section 113, no person shall construct, or without the permission of the Municipality under Section 95 reconstruct, any portion of any building within the regular line of the public street.