GAURI SHANKAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by Mr. Rup Kishan Agha, Officiating Sessions Judge of Allahabad, recommending that the conviction of one Gauri Shankar Singh under Section 265, Municipalities Act, be set aside.

(2.) This case is a typical example of aggressiveness on the part of a Municipal Board with a view to establish a claim to property, the title to which is in dispute. Section 265, Municipalities Act, has its use; but not unoften the powers conferred by the section are abused. This is to be strongly deprecated. Where there is a clash between a Municipal Board on the one side and a private individual on the other with reference to some property, the matter has got to be adjudicated by the civil Court which is the only forum for determining the title. The straightforward course in such a case is the institution of a suit in the civil Court. The remedy provided by Section 265, Municipalities Act, may be cheap, swift and within a certain range effective. The section, however, was never intended to arm a Municipal Board with powers to disturb the possession of any person who asserts a lawful title to the property in controversy.

(3.) Gauri Shankar Singh was convicted by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates on 12 December 1928, under Section 265, Municipalities Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2. The head and front of his offence is that he tied his cow on a piece of land which is in the immediate vicinity of his house but which the Municipal Board claims as part of a public lane. The title to this piece of land is disputed. Gauri Shankar Singh denied that it was part of a public lane, asserted his own title to the same and alleged that the land belonged to him and was his sahan darwaza. The trial Court describes the property as a blind lane throgh which other persons pass. The appellate Court agrees with the trial Court that it is a blind lane which is used by the occupants of two other houses bearing the Municipal Nos. 272 and 273. The learned Sessions Judge has very clearly described the position and boundary of the disputed site. It abuts on a public street on the west and there is a short narrow lane at the south east corner giving access to another open land bounded by houses Nos. 272 on the south, 273 on the east and 274, applicant's house, on the north.