Skip to content


Chunilal Hargovan Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Bom67; 97Ind.Cas.668
AppellantChunilal Hargovan
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- - ]?or, as is well-known, the limits of the land revenue administration may not, and often do not, coincide with the limits of other administrations......the provisions of section 61-a tothe lands for the time being included for the purposes of the land revenue administration within the limits ofcertain towns or villages, of which borsad is one.2. the learned pleader for the applicant points out that the municipal streets vest in the municipality, under section 50 of the bombay district municipal act, and contends that, therefore, such lands cannot be included for the purposes of the land revenue administration within the meaning of the notification. in my opinion this argument has no substance. the mere fact that the lands, which are now used as streets, vest for the time being in the municipality, as trustees under the bombay district municipal act, does not prevent the lands being included within the limits of the town of borsad.....
Judgment:

Fawcett, J.

1. The applicant was prosecuted for permitting his cow to stray in a street at Borsad at 8 p.m. on a certain date, and thereby having committed an offence under Section 61-A of the Bombay District Police Act. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined Rs. 75. His appeal was dismissed because he pleaded guilty. He now comes in revision and contends that the conviction is illegal, because Section 61-A has not been extended to the Municipal streets in Borsad where the cow was found straying. In view of the provisions of Section 412, Criminal Procedure Code. I think this plea can be raised although the applicant pleaded guilty The contention rests upon the Government Notification No. 781, dated January 29, 1919. This extends the provisions of Section 61-A to

the lands for the time being included for the purposes of the Land Revenue Administration within the limits of

certain towns or villages, of which Borsad is one.

2. The learned pleader for the applicant points out that the Municipal streets vest in the Municipality, under Section 50 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, and contends that, therefore, such lands cannot be included for the purposes of the Land Revenue administration within the meaning of the Notification. In my opinion this argument has no substance. The mere fact that the lands, which are now used as streets, vest for the time being in the Municipality, as trustees under the Bombay District Municipal Act, does not prevent the lands being included within the limits of the town of Borsad for the purposes of the Land Revenue Administration.

3. The Bombay Land Revenue Code of 1879 makes it clear in Section 87 that primarily all lands belong to Government, save and except so far as any rights by persons may be established over them. And, although there may be private ownership of lands, yet those lands do not cease to be included for the purposes of land revenue administration within the limits of any particular town or village. Sections 96 and 126 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code show that within the site of any village, town or city, there may be a survey for the purposes of land revenue administration, and such a survey can extend even to lands which for the time being vest in the Municipality as trustees or which are privately owned. It seems to me that the meaning of the Notification is simply that, so far as by any map or other authorised act of the land revenue administration certain lands have been included within the limits of a particular town or village mentioned in the Notification, Section 61-A extends to those lands. Therefore, I do not think that there is any reason for our interference, and I would dismiss the application.

Madgavkar, J.

4. I agree. I take the words, 'for the purposes of the laud revenue administration.' to have been inserted to avoid ambiguity. ]?or, as is well-known, the limits of the land revenue administration may not, and often do not, coincide with the limits of other administrations. The limits of a judicial district, for instance, do not always coincide with the limits of the revenue district, and the limits of a Municipal administration may not concide with those of the police administration. The question, whether the ownership of any lands within these limits vests in any particular person or corporation is, in my poinion, irrelevant.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //