SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(All) 186

R.M.SAHAI
RAJ BALI PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION DEORIA – Respondent


R. M. SAHAI, J.

By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the power of the Magistrate to impose fine for use of land reserved for public utility for purposes other than agriculture as detailed in sub-paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The proceedings started on a complaint, filed by opposite party, on 25th November, 1969 for taking action against the petitioner as he encroached and was making constructions over the land reserved for abadi without permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Magistrate found that the land originally belonged to petitioner but it was reserved for extension of abadi during consolidation proceedings. and the petitioner was given other land in lieu of it. As the land did not belong to him and it was owned by Gaon Sabha the petitioner was guilty of making constructions over it and was liable to be penalised under Section 45a of the Consolidation Act.

Section 45a is penal section. It empowers the competent court to impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 1000. 00, but the conviction can be for breach of Section 5 (1) (C) which runs as follows:

(C) "notwithstanding anything contained in the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top