LE Correspondent

Bengaluru, June 1, 2022: Taking note of the fact that no material had been placed on record mentioning the type of nuisance caused to the general public by establishing  a poultry farm in the private land owned by the petitioners, the Karnataka High Court has opined that the powers under Sections 133, 138 and 139 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by affording sufficient opportunities to the parties in order to record evidence and to arrive at a legal finding that the action of the petitioners has resulted in nuisance to the general public at large. 

The Bench of Justice V.Shrishnanda was considering a petition filed under under Section 482 of Cr.P.C  to set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate whereby the preliminary order asking the petitioners to close the poultry farm on the ground that the farm was creating nuisance to the general public was confirmed.

The facts of the matter were such that the petitioners had established a poultry farm in the agricultural land belonging to them and a notice came to be issued directing the petitioners to close the farm on the ground of nuisance and a show-cause notice was also issued to them. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order making the preliminary order absolute. Again the said order was challenged by the petitioners herein before the First Additional District and Sessions Judge but the Revision Petition was dismissed. Hence, this challenge was laid before the High Court.

The Bench was of the opinion that the term ‘agriculture’ in its wide connotation encompasses into it the activities allied to the agricultural operations and poultry farming is part of the agricultural operations. It was also noted that the poultry farm is situated about 3 kms away from the place where the residences of the general public are situated.

Considering these aspects, the Bench held that the action taken by the authorities without even recording the evidence of the parties, had resulted in miscarriage of justice and also abuse of process of law. Thus, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistratewas set aside.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment