MUNNO DEVI Vs. MUNCIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Agra recommending that the convictions of Mt. Munoo Devi, a school teacher, under Secs.185 and 307 of the Municipalities Act (Local Act No. II of 1916 as amended by Act No. II of 1919) and the sentences of fine of Rs. 10 on each count be set aside.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The lady applied to the Municipal Board on the 29 of July,1924, for permission to rebuild certain parts of her house, but in her application she did not clearly specify the extent of the proposed building. On the 30 of July the municipal draftsman prepared a map showing the western side of the building only. Acting probably on the approval of the Ward Member she began to build in anticipation of sanction. On the 25 of August she applied for the preparation of a new plan including both the western and eastern sides. The Board ordered a new plan to be prepared and the applicant to deposit the necessary fees. On the 2 September, before any final orders had been passed on her application the Board served a notice on her to remove the building already constructed. Later on namely on the 6 of September the Board sanctioned permission to build the western half of the building. She stopped going any further with the construction and applied to the Board stating that she had constructed the building in anticipation of sanction because her house was cracked and was in danger of falling down if she did not repair it. On the 19 September she was prosecuted for building without permission and also for failing to comply with the orders of the Board.

(3.) The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that she did begin to construct parts of the building before leave was granted to her. Ha also found that the leave was confined to the construction on the western side only and that no order on her application to build on the eastern side had yet been finally passed. Her application for such a permission is still pending. As to the construction on the eastern side the learned Magistrate on inspection has found that the old chajja projecting on this side has been enlarge and now extends as far as her chabutra. The evidence of the Chief Sanitary Inspector was to the effect that a varandah and a latrine were being built in August and that the said latrine was in the balcony. He further stated that the balcony was covered with tin. In this he was supported by another witness who occupies an adjacent house. On the day when the Magistrate inspected the locality he, however, did not notice any tin covering. The construction had apparently been partially removed though perhaps not completely. 3. The learned Magistrate justly commented on the unsatisfactory way in which the Municipal Board acted in the matter. On the 2 September, notice to remove the construction was issued which included constructions on both sides. On the 6 of September sanction to construct the western portion was actually granted. Nevertheless on the 19 she was prosecuted with regard to both portions. The Municipal Board also does not seem to have acted promptly on her application of July when the rainy season was on and her house must have been in some danger. The Board certainly cannot be congratulated on the way in which it proceeded; against the applicant. 3. Technically speaking the applicant was guilty of beginning to make her construction even on the western side before formal sanction had been granted. Though the subsequent grant of the sanction ought to have deterred the Board, if it had acted reasonably from prosecuting her for building without permission, it cannot obviate the fact that she did begin to build before any sanction had been granted-Furthermore no sanction has yet been granted for the construction on the eastern side.