P.K. Jain, J. - (1.) CASE taken up in the revised list, No one turns up to press this revision. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and perused means of revision as also the material on record.
(2.) THE revisionist was convicted under Section 185 of the Municipalities Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months vide judgment and order dated 27.4.1981 passed by the then Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur. His appeal against the judgment and order of conviction was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 24.9.1983. Both these judgments and orders of the trial court as well as appellate court are challenged by way of this revision. The revisionist was prosecuted on the complaint of the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mirzapur, on the ground that he had taken unauthorised possession over the Municipal land and constructed a house thereon without getting proper construction plan sanctioned. After conviction by the trial court the revisionist filed appeal which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 24.1.1981. However, Municipal Board filed Criminal Revision No. 1545 of 1981 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 24th January, 1983 and the case was remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge for disposal afresh. On the case being remanded the appeal was again heard by the learned Sessions Judge and was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.9.1983. It was observed in the appellate court's judgment that "while disposing of the revision. His Lordship pointed out that the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Municipalities Act stands committed even if a construction is made on private land within the Municipal limit by the owner of that land". Further observation of the revisional court as quoted in the judgment of the appellate court was that "this land was within Municipal limits, therefore, there was possibility of the land belonging to the Municipal Board and the opposite party did not adduce any evidence to show that the land belonged to him. But, as I have already said whether this was municipal land or land belonged to the opposite party since the construction on it was unauthorised, the opposite party was liable to be convicted under Section 185 of the Municipalities Act."
(3.) IT appears that it was argued before the appellate court that the aforesaid observations made by the revisional court were without jurisdiction. The appellate court, however come to the conclusion that assuming that the Municipal Board, Mirzapur, has failed to establish that the land in question belongs to the Board, the Appellant cannot escape the liability of punishment. The Appellant was served with a notice stating that the Appellant had raised constructions without obtaining sanction or permission of the Board. The Appellant did not reply to the notice. In oral evidence all the three witnesses stated that the Appellant raised constructions without obtaining permission. On consideration of the evidence the learned appellate court came to the conclusion that the Appellant had failed to show that the constructions were made by him, after obtaining permission or sanction of the Municipal Board. Therefore, he was liable to be convicted under Section 185 of the Municipalities Act. This is a finding of fact which cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, there is no error in the judgment of the trial court as well as of the appellate court. The revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.;