Wanchoo, C.J.—These are two connected matters and we shall dispose them of by one judgment. The appeal is by the Mate against the acquittal of Nemichand by the District Magistrate, Churu. The revision is by Jaichandlal Vice President of the Municipal Board, Bidasar against Bhanwarlal and Nemichand.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated. It appears that Bhanwarlal and Nemichand had applied to the Municipal Board, Bidasar on the 5th of November 1952 giving notice of constructing a house. As the application was not accompanied with the plan of the house and the Patta of the land on which the house was to be built, the Municipal Board gave notice to Bhanwarlal and Nemichand to submit the plan of the house and the Patta of the land and thereafter grant of permission would be considered. Bhanwarlal and Nemichand were also told that they should stop making constructions without notice to the Board as they were said to have already begun the construction.

3. Bhanwarlal and Nemichand replied to this notice by taking up the attitude that they were not bound under the law to give notice to the Municipal Board before constructing the house and asked the Board to state how the Board insisted on asking them to obtain permission. Thereafter the Board gave notice to them that if they did not stop constructions, they would be prosecuted under sec. 108 (6) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, hereinafter called the Act. As these persons did not stop the constructions, they were prosecuted by the Board. Bhanwarlal was acquitted, but Nemichand was convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/-. Nemi-chand appealed to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate allowed the appeal and acquitted Nemichand also.

4 The appeal of the State is against this order of acquittal of Nemichand, Jaichandlal also had come up in revision against this order of acquittal, but for some reason he also added the name of Bhanwarlal, though Bhanwarlal had been acquitted by the Magistrate long ago and that order of acquittal does not seem to have been challenged till the District Magistrate acquitted Nemichand also. Learned counsel appearing for Jaichandlal has stated that his client did not intend to file the revision against Bhanwarlal and that he does not press it against Bhanwarlal. So, there only remains the revision application against the acquittal of Nemichand and that is covered by the appeal of the State The revision must therefore be dismissed on the ground that it has now become infructuous in view of the appeal by the State.

5. We now turn to the appeal against the acquittal of Nemichand. The charge against him was that he constructed a house in Bidasar without giving notice to the Municipal Board as required by sec. 108(1) of the Act. That no sanction of the Municipal Board was obtained is not in dispute. What Nemichand contended was that no such permission was necessary and the reason for this contention was that the law did not require the residents of a municipality to give notice under sec. 108(1) till the provisions of sec. 101 of the Act were complied with. The trial Magistrate did not go into this question at all, the appellate court accepted the view that as the provisions of sec. 101 had not been complied with, no notice was required under sec. 108 (1) of the Act. It is this view of the appellate court which is being contested before us by the State.

6. We must say that the District Magistrate completely misdirected himself when he thought that any compliance with sec. 101 was necessary in the matter of fixing the line of streets before notice for construction of a new building under sec. 108(1) was required. The relevant portion of sec, 108 (1) is as follows :—

Before beginning to construct any building or to alter externally or add to any existing building or to construct or reconstruct any projecting portion of a building in respect of

which the municipal board is empowered by sec. 102 to enforce a remova

Click Here to Read the rest of this document