PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. VARADARAJULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an order of acquittal made in the following circumstances :--The accused-respondent was directed under Section 182 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, by the Chairman of the Salem Municipal Council to remove an encroachment, it having been alleged that a compound-wall built by the accused in front of his house encroached upon a public street. The accused refused to comply with the order on the ground that there was no encroachment and thereupon he was prosecuted under Section 313 by the Municipal Council for having failed to comply with the requisition lawfully made in pursuance of the provisions of the Act. The accused was tried by a Bench of Magistrates and they found that the wall was not built upon a part of the public street, that the portion occupied by the wall never formed a part of the street and that therefore there was no encroachment. On this finding of fact the order of acquittal was clearly justified. It is, however, faintly suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor that Section 182 gives the Municipal Council power of compulsory acquisition, that is to say, that although the wall in question was not built upon any part of a public street still the Municipality could call upon the accused to remove the wall and on his failing to do so get him convicted and that the relief to which the accused would be entitled is compensation mentioned in the section.

(2.) Section 182, so far as it is relevant for the present purpose, is as follows: 1. The Chairman may by notice require the owner of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction situated against in front of such premises and in or over any street. 2. If the owner...of the premises proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the Law of Limitation to give any person a prescriptive title thereto or ... the Municipal Council shall make reasonable compensation to every person who suffers damage by the removal or alteration of the same.

(3.) It is quite obvious that the object of the section is not to empower the Municipality to compulsorily acquire a private property but its scope is limited to authorising the Municipal body in public interest to cause obstructions and encroachments to be removed.