MUNNA LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision from an order passed under Section 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the applicant to have a portion of his building removed within a month. The accused went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who summarily dismissed his application.

(2.) The matter in dispute was somewhat complicated as is borne out by the circumstances that the original notice issued under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code had to be amended several times. The notice proceeded on the assumption that the accused in building a shop had encroached upon apart of the public way. When the accused appeared he contested the notice and denied that there had been any encroachment. His pleas were that he made no encroachment and that there was already a distance of 9 feat between the road and his shop. He produced a map showing that there was a space of 9 feet between the road and the shop and that the width of the public road varied at different places. On the other hand, the Magistrate had before him a map prepared by order of the Town Area Committee in 1920. showing that there had been an encroachment upon the road, as also the Survey of India map kept by the P.W.D. Several witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence were examined. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence elaborately came to the conclusion that there was undoubtedly an encroachment. He accordingly passed the order aforementioned.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision on the ground that the Court found that the building involved an encroachment of the public way. An affidavit has been filed in this Court suggesting that the dispute between the accused and the local authorities as regards the right to build on this land or at any rate on the land in this locality is of a very long duration. I, however, do not take into account the various allegations referred to in the affidavit.