| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1964 SLG 3705 = 1964 SLD 3705 = 1964 PLD 18 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1963, decided on 2nd December 1963.
Presented By: Muhammad Sharif, J
A I R 1933 Sind 227 ref. Abdul Haiy for Petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1963, decided on 2nd December 1963.
Presented By: Muhammad Sharif, J
A I R 1933 Sind 227 ref. Abdul Haiy for Petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Syed MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH-Petitioner
VERSUS
SARKAR-Respondent
Law: Punjab Municipal Act (III of 1911)
Section: 195
Punjab Municipal Act (III of 1911), Ss. 195 do 192- Municipality, with view to provide public street, preventing owner from raising structure on part of his own land-No scheme drawn up under S. 190 nor land acquired for purpose-Action of Municipality, held, in excess of powers possessed by them-Conviction, under S. 195, set aside. ORDER A complaint was brought by the Municipal Committee Muzaffarabad against Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah petitioner in the Court of the A. D. M., Muzaffarabad under section 195, Municipal Act for constructing a house in contravention of the conditions imposed by the Municipal Committee. The condition imposed was that the petitioner shall not construct upon 4 feet of his land towards the east so that a public street o feet may be provided by asking the proprietor on the other side also to leave vacant 4 feet of his land. The learned A. D. M. who conducted a summary trial by his order dated 20-9-63 convicted the petitioner under section 195, Municipal Act on admission of a guilt made by the petitioner and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 50 and to one week S. I. in default of payment of fine. It was further ordered that until the accused-petitioner makes available a 4 feet path he shall be liable to pay a daily fine of Annas four (Paisa twenty-five) in addition to the fine already imposed. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had made no admission of guilt. His contention is that the learned Magistrate asked the accused if he had constructed the house to which he replied in the affirmative and this would not amount to an admission of guilt. He has also argued that in any case non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the Municipal Committee for leaving, a path of 4 feet would not amount to an offence since the Municipal Committee has no jurisdiction to impose such a condition. He has cited A I R 1933 Sind 227, wherein it has been laid down that action of the Municipality preventing an owner of land from building about a third of his land because the land un-built on forms an open lung in a congested area and further congestion in the area would create unsanitary…