Skip to content


Bulaki Das Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All371; 1Ind.Cas.896
AppellantBulaki Das
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council and ors.
Excerpt:
united provinces municipalities act (i of 1900), section 183 - district magistrate cancelling permission given by municipal board to build a temple--suit to set aside district magistrate's order not maintainable. - .....of restoring it. he applied to the municipal board on the 3rd of august 1905, for permission to build a temple on the chabutra and his application was granted send the building was commenced. later on, however, some muhammadan members of the community protested against the building and, in consequence, the district magistrate on the 6th of february 1906 cancelled the order of the board in favour of the plaintiff, purporting to act under the provisions of section 183 of the municipalities act, act i of 1900. the order of the district magistrate was confirmed by the local government on the 7th of march 1906. the learned additional judge held that it was not open to the plaintiff to maintain his suit in view of the order of the district magitrate, hence this appeal.2. we think that the.....
Judgment:

John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. We think that the decision of the learned Additional Judge of Moradabad, from which this appeal is preferred, is correct, The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he is entitled to build a temple on a site in Moradabad. In a sarai in that city there is a Chabutra with an image of the god Mahadeo. It is said that there was formerly a kuohha temple upon this site which had fallen into ruin and that the plaintiff was desirous of restoring it. He applied to the Municipal Board on the 3rd of August 1905, for permission to build a temple on the Chabutra and his application was granted send the building was commenced. Later on, however, some Muhammadan members of the community protested against the building and, in consequence, the District Magistrate on the 6th of February 1906 cancelled the order of the Board in favour of the plaintiff, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 183 of the Municipalities Act, Act I of 1900. The order of the District Magistrate was confirmed by the Local Government on the 7th of March 1906. The learned Additional Judge held that it was not open to the plaintiff to maintain his suit in view of the order of the District Magitrate, Hence this appeal.

2. We think that the view of the law taken by the learned Judge is correct. Section 183 provides that a District Magistrate may by an order in writing suspend within the limits of his district the execution of any order of the Municipal Board and may prohibit the doing within those limits of any act which is about to be done or is being done in pursuance of or under cover of the act, if in his opinion the doing of the act is likely to lead to breach of the peace, or cause injury or inconvenience to the public or any class or body of persons. The craer of the District Magistrate cancelling the order of the Municipal Board, giving permission to the building of the temple in question, was passed in pursuance of this Act and it was confirmed by an order of the Local Government as provided for by Sub-section (2) of Section 183, In view of this action of the District Magistrate we are of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to build despite the order BO passed and confirmed. The principle governing the ruling of a Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Aziz v. The Municipal Board of Pilibhit (1905) 2 A.L.J.R. 222 appears to us to be applicable to this case. There it was held that where a Municipal Board acting under its statutory powers ordered the course of a drain which it considered to be prejudicial to health to be diverted, it was held that the Civil Court had no power to disturb the order of the Board inasmuch as it was acting within its statutory powers. So here we think that the Civil Court has no power to disturb the order of the District Magistrate, who acted within his jurisdiction and whose order has been duly confirmed by the Local Government. We dismiss the appeal with two separate sets of costs, one payable to the defendant No. 1 and one to other defendants respondents.


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