Skip to content


Union Board, Ayyampet Vs. Ramachandra Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Mad971; 129Ind.Cas.81
AppellantUnion Board, Ayyampet
RespondentRamachandra Aiyar
Excerpt:
- - the charge was against the occupier of premises within the jurisdiction of the union board that he failed to remove an encroachment of which notice was given to him under section 159, madras local boards act. after that acquittal the union board sent a fresh notice under section 159 (1) to the accused to remove the encroachment, and it was for failure to do so that this case was brought......board, ayyampet. the charge was against the occupier of premises within the jurisdiction of the union board that he failed to remove an encroachment of which notice was given to him under section 159, madras local boards act. there appears to be no doubt that the alleged encroachment was an encroachment. the stationary sub-magistrate of papanasam found the accused guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of rs. 10. but in appeal the sub-divisional magistrate of mayavaram set aside that conviction and acquitted the accused on the ground that he had been tried for the same offence upon the same facts in a previous trial, namely, in c.c. no. 174 of 1927. what happened in c.c. no. 174 of 1927 was that the district board of tanjore brought a case against this accused for failing to remove.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pandalal, J.

1. This is a revision petition against an acquittal and the petitioner is the President of the Union Board, Ayyampet. The charge was against the occupier of premises within the jurisdiction of the Union Board that he failed to remove an encroachment of which notice was given to him under Section 159, Madras Local Boards Act. There appears to be no doubt that the alleged encroachment was an encroachment. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Papanasam found the accused guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10. But in appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram set aside that conviction and acquitted the accused on the ground that he had been tried for the same offence upon the same facts in a previous trial, namely, in C.C. No. 174 of 1927. What happened in C.C. No. 174 of 1927 was that the District Board of Tanjore brought a case against this accused for failing to remove the same encroachment after notice to remove it was given by the District Board. In answer to that charge the accused pleaded that the road was within the jurisdiction of the Ayyampet Union Board and that therefore the District Board was not the authority to cause removal. This was accepted and the accused was acquitted. After that acquittal the Union Board sent a fresh notice under Section 159 (1) to the accused to remove the encroachment, and it was for failure to do so that this case was brought. The present case was not upon the same facts as C.C. No. 174 of 1927 and the acquittal was therefore wrong. I have now to decide whether it is worth while ordering a retrial of this accused for this offence. I do not think it is necessary in the interests of the Union Board or of public justice that there should be a retrial of this particular accused for this particular offence. He is only a tenant of the premises. The owner of the premises has, it appears, addressed the Union Board accepting responsibility for the encroachment, and it will be quite enough for the Union Board, if they are so advised, to take steps if necessary against the owner. With these remarks the petition is dismissed.


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