EMPEROR Vs. GULABCHAND SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant applied on 4-11-1944 for permission to build on the site shown as GBEF in the plan, Ex. P-11. The application is Ex, P-1. To this was attached a site plan, Ex. P-2, of the proposed building.

(2.) ON 22-4-1945, the Committee gave sanction to build on the portion shown as ABCD in EX. P-11 and refused sanction for the rest. In spite of this prohibition, the applicant started to construct his building on portions of the site for which sanction was not obtained. The construction reached the plinth stage. On 20-2-1946 the Committee served a notice, Ex. P-10, on the applicant and directed him to demolish the portion which lay outside the sanctioned area. No time was given in the notice for compliance with this. As the applicant took no steps to demolish the offending parts of his building, the Committee filed a complaint on 26-4-1946 for a breach of bye-law No. 20.

(3.) -11-1944 (EX. P-1) and every requisite which such notice has to contain was present. Therefore, bye-law No. 20 has no application. 4. It is contended here that the conviction can be sustained under Section 199, C.P. Municipalities Act of 1922 for two reasons, (1) because the applicant failed to obey the notice (Ex. P-10) dated 20-2-1946 which required him to demolish the offending portions of the structure and (2) because he built in the face of the prohibition.