AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.—The petitioner was convicted, by the Assistant Tahsildar Magistrate of Ramnad for an offence punishable u/s 207
of the Local Boards Act for having disobeyed a requisition of the Local Board calling upon him to remove an encroachment on a public road and
was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5 per day until the encroachment is removed. On appeal the Joint
Magistrate of Ramnad confirmed the conviction and sentence.
The first contention of the petitioner is that he has obtained a prescriptive right over the plot encroached upon. But u/s 159(2) of the Local
Boards Act even if a person had acquired such a prescriptive right he could only claim a reasonable compensation in respect of the damage caused
by the removal or alteration of the encroachment. But the payment of compensation is not a condition precedent and this was pointed out by this
Court in Narayana Aiyar Vs. Y. E. P. K. R. V. Subramania Chetty, . Consequently the failure to offer compensation cannot be said to vitiate the
conviction for the offence punishable u/s 207(1).
With regard to the order directing the payment of a fine of Rs. 5 per day until the encroachment is completely removed, this sentence was
awarded u/s 207(2). That section reads as if such an order could be passed only if there has been a first conviction for failure to retrieve or alter an
encroachment and the person persists in failing to comply with the requisition. A second charge sheet will have to be laid and it is only on a
conviction on such a charge-sheet a sentence could be awarded u/s 207(2). The sentence u/s 207(2) directing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 5
per day till the encroachment is completely'' removed has hence to be set aside and it is set aside accordingly.