MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER Vs. J N ERANNA RAO
LAWS(APH)-1954-11-19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 05,1954

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER Appellant
VERSUS
J.N.ERANNA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is a revision against acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Adoni. The petitioner is the Municipal Council, Adoni. The charge against the respondent was that he reconstiucted a side wall and re-roofed his house without the permission of the petitioner Municipality.
(2.) The prosecution case may be briefly stated. The respondent owns a house No. 57 in Ward No. VIII within the Municipality of Adoni. On 9th November, 1953, he applied for permission to construct an upstair and re-roof his house. The permission asked for was granted on the 30th of November, 1953. Three days later, that is, on the 3rd December, 1953, the respondent submitted a second application to re-roof his house and reconstruct the walls, with a plan artached thereto. This application was forwarded to the Buildings Inspector, who inspected the place on the 12th December and recommered refusal of the permission as the reconstruction of the walls would violate Rule 9 (2) of the Revised Building Rules.
(3.) On this report the second application of the respondent was rejected on the 24th December, 1953. Meanwhile the Buildings Inspector inspected the locality on 14th December, 1953 and found that the respondent had commenced reconstruction of walls to a height of 6 or 7 feet. Thereupon a notice, Exhibit P-4, was issued by the Commissioner under section 216 (2) of the District Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act) but the respondent refused to receive it and so it had to be affixed to the door of his house. On the 2nd of January, 1954, a notice confirming the earlier one was issued under section 216, sub-section (3) of the Act. This was also refused by the respondent and the same procedure as on the earlier occasion was followed. A chrge-sheet was filed on the 28th December, 1953. The defence was that the reconstruction was made with the necessary permission of the Municipality and also that the accused was not served with either of the two notices issued under section 216 of the Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.