Villuri Jagannadham Naidu vs Ch. Rama Rao, Sanitary Inspector

Krishnan, J.—In this case, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 362 and 313 of the District Municipalities Act, V of 1920 and

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 with two weeks'' simple imprisonment in default. The facts found on which he has been convicted are that he built

a buttress wall to his compound wall, which projected on to the municipal street adjoining it. This was no doubt an encroachment. Taking the

definition of the word "" street "" in Section 3, Clause (21), encroachment upon the land by the side of a street, even though it is uncovered by any

pavement or other structure, would be an encroachment on the street. Section 180 would certainly apply to this case. But the lower Courts, though

the accused was first charged u/s 180, have altered the charge, because of the difficulty of the limitation of three months, within which the

prosecution has to be started, for an offence u/s 180 to one u/s 362 of the District Municipalities Act. It is clear that Section 362 cannot apply to

this case, but that Section 180 is the section that really applies. Section 362 deals with the removal of earth, sand or other materials or depositing

such materials or making such encroachments by depositing such materials on land, river, estuary, canal, backwater or water course. It has nothing

to do with encroachments on streets. It is not denied in this case that the prosecution u/s 180 must fail, on the ground of limitation. Even if Section

362 were to apply, it seems to me that the prosecution will still fail, under the three months'' rule as the proviso to Section 347 does not seem to

deal with a case u/s 362 at all. The proviso deals with failure to take out a license, obtain permission, or to secure registration for doing certain

things for which a license, permission or registration is required. The accused is not prosecuted for any failure to take out any license or obtain

permission or secure registration. He has been prosecuted for encroaching upon a municipal street by building buttress wall to his compound wall.

The case against him therefore fails on the ground of limitation and should have been dismissed. What exactly the Municipality should do, for the

purpose of getting the encroachment on the street removed, will be for its own legal advisers to advise.

This petition is allowed, the conviction is set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.