JUDGMENT A.K. Kirty, J. - All these appeals, 51 in number, arise out of the prosecutions launched against the respondent or respondents in these appeals under section 13 of the UP Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (UP Act No. X of 1945 -hereafter referred to as the UP Act). Ina nutshell the charge against the respondent or respondents was that he or they had erected building or buildings in contravention of the provisions of S. 5 of the UP Act on land lying on either side of the Grand Trunk Road (G. T. Road) within the area of Tahsil Handia, distt. Allahabad. G. T. road was declared to be National Highway No. 2 under the National Highways Act (No. XLVII of 1955-hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). All the cases were tried by the SDM, Handia who acquitted all the accused persons against whom complaints had been filed. The present appeals have been filed by the State of UP against the orders of acquittal passed by the aforesaid Magistrate. 2. under section 3 of the UP Act, the State Government by a notification No. 1160. LC/XXIII-PWD-3 LC/59 dated April 13, 1960 published in the official Gazette declared the land within a distance of 220 yards from the centre line of the G. T. road on either side to be a "controlled area" for the purposes of the UP Act. All the declarations of "controlled area" concerning these cases were made after April 15, 1957. S. 5 of the UP Act prohibits the erection or re-erection of any building on any land, which has been declared to be a controlled area under section 3 of that Act, without prior permission of the Collector. S. 13 of the UP Act makes the erection or re-erection of a building within the controlled area without the permission of the Collector a punishable offence. It further provides that the Collector may order any person, who has erected or erected such building, to restore the land to its original condition and empowers the Collector, on the failure of the person to comply with the order, to take such measure as may appear to him to be necessary to give effect to the order. The case against the respondents was that by erecting buildings within the controlled area without Collector's permission, they had committed offences punishable under section 13 of the UP Act. The case against the respondents was that by erecting buildings within the controlled area without Collector's permission, they had committed offences punishable under section 13 of the UP Act. It seems that on behalf of all the accused persons a plea was taken before the learned Magistrate that the proviso to sub S. (1) of S. 3 of the UP Act excluded the land upon which the buildings complained of had been made from the ambit of the "Controlled area" and, hence, from the mischief of S. 13 of the UP Act, Sub S. (1) of S. 3 of the UP Act and the proviso thereto relied on by the respondents are reproduced below :- "3. Declaration of controlled area-- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare any land within a distance of four hundred and forty yards from the centre line of any road to be a controlled area for the purposes of this Act : Provided that in the case of a national highway, the highway itself shall not be deemed to be a controlled area." This contention raised on behalf of the respondents was upheld by the learned Magistrate, with the result that he dismissed all the complaints and acquited the person or persons accused in each complaint. It would to appropriate here to quote a passage from the order of the learned Magistrate because, apart from other submissions made before me, it was contended on behalf of the State that no admission or concession was made before the Magistrate, as has been mentioned by him in his order : "G.T. road is admittedly a national highway and the prosecution admits that the boundaries of the G.T. road lie upto 100 ft. on either side of the road from its centre line. It is thus clear that the constructions in question have been made within the road boundaries." The view taken by the learned Magistrate was that by virtue of the proviso to sub-S. (1) of S. 3 of the UP Act "controlled area" did not include 100 ft. from the centre line of the G. T. road on either side. The main question in all the appeals before me is whether the view taken by the learned Magistrate is legally correct. from the centre line of the G. T. road on either side. The main question in all the appeals before me is whether the view taken by the learned Magistrate is legally correct. Before dealing with this question of law, however, it would be appropriate and necessary to very briefly mention the material facts pertaining to each appeal. This has become necessary because the learned counsel for the State contended before me that no such concession or admission was made on behalf of the prosecution, as has been noted noted in the order of the learned Magistrate. The facts which I am noting below with specific reference to each appeal have been culled out by me from the complaints concerned. Cr. A. No. 1085/65 : The respondent Jagat Bahadur, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house at a distance of 30 ft. from the centre of the road in 1963. Cr. A. No. 1432/65 : Dharmpal Singh, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 80 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1438/65 : Munna respondent, according to the prosecution, constructed a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 56 ft. from the road centre. Cr. A. No. 1440/65 : Majid and two others respondents, according to the pro section, erected a pucca house in 1964 at a distance of 45 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1443/65 : The respondent Yusuf, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 60 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1444/65 : Khaliq respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 43 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1446/65 : Saghir respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 57 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1447/65 : Mool Chand respondent, according to the prosecution, constructed a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 52 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1449/65 : Fahim respondent, according to the prosecution, made a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 57 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. Cr. A. No. 1447/65 : Mool Chand respondent, according to the prosecution, constructed a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 52 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1449/65 : Fahim respondent, according to the prosecution, made a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 57 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1450/65 : Fahim respondent, according to the prosecution erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 56 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1451/65 : Mohamadi respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house at a distance of 56 ft. in 1964, from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1452/65 : Jabid Ali respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 57 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1453/65 : Ganga Ram respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 41 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1454/65 : Satya Narain respondent, according to the prosecution, built a kutcha house in 1964 at a distance of 58 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1455/65 : Lal Mani Misra and Dan Bahadur respondents, according to the prosecution erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 43 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1456/65 : Gajroop Singh respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a house in 1963 at a distance of 35 ft. from the road. Cr. A. No. 1457/65 : Azimullah respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house at a distance of 54 ft. from the road centre in 1964. Cr. A. No. 1458/65 : Kali Charan respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 91 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1459/65 : Bechu Lal respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 53 ft. from the road centre. Cr. A. No. 1460/65 : Saidan Ahmed respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kotha in 1963 at a distance of 56 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. Cr. A. No. 1459/65 : Bechu Lal respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 53 ft. from the road centre. Cr. A. No. 1460/65 : Saidan Ahmed respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kotha in 1963 at a distance of 56 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1461/65 : Beni Prasad respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1964 at a distance of 61 ft. form the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1462/65 : Fahim, respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1964 at a distance of 54 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1463/65 : Salim respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 47 ft. from the, centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1464/65 : Sri Nath respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 80 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1465/65 : Hira Lal respondent, according to the prosecution, constructed a pucca house in 1964 at a distance of 40 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1468/65 : Raja Ram respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 31 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1488/65 : Panna Lal respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1964 at a distance of 38 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1489/65 : Usman respondent, according to the prosecution, constructed a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 38 ft. from the centre line of the road. Cr. A. No. 1490/65 : Ram Khelawan respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 50 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1491/65 : Rahim respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1964 at a distance of 60 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1492/65 : Jawahar Lal respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a tin shed and a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 29 ft. 6 inches and 39 ft. 6 inches respectively from the centre of the road. Cr. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1492/65 : Jawahar Lal respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a tin shed and a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 29 ft. 6 inches and 39 ft. 6 inches respectively from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1493/65 : Khaliq respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 50 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1494/65 : Beni Rang respondent, according to the prosecution erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 64 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1496/65 : Jata Shanker respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 55 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1497/65 : Sita Ram respondent, according to the prosecution, constructed a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 80 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1498/65 : Jata Shanker respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 80 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1499/65 : Sahdeo respondent, according to the prosecution, constructed a house in 1963 at a distance of 33 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1500/65 : Raja Ram respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 43 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A, No. 1501/65 : Munawwar All respondent, according to the prosecution erected a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 80 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1502/65 : Raja Ram respondent (?). Cr. A. No. 1503/65 : Nazir respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 38 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1504/56 : Mohd. Zahoor Khan respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 74 fl. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1505/65 : Murli respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 80 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1504/56 : Mohd. Zahoor Khan respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 74 fl. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1505/65 : Murli respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1961 at a distance of 80 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1506/65 : Abdul Rahim respondent, according to the prosecution, constructed a kutcha house in 1963 at a distance of 52 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1507/65 : Ram Milan Tewari respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1963 at a distance of 39 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1508/65 : Mohammadi respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1964 at a distance of 33 ft,. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1509/65 : Nazir respondent, according to the prosecution, built a kutcha house in 1964 at a distance of 61 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1510/65 : Sheo Lakhan Singh respondent, according to the prosecution, erected pucca houses in 1964 at a distance of 46 ft., 50 ft. and 54 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1511/65 : Ram Asre respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a pucca house in 1964 at a distance of 37 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1512/65 : Sheo Lakhan Singh respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a hut in 1963 at a distance of 30 ft. from the centre of the road. Cr. A. No. 1534/65 : Smt. Rangila respondent, according to the prosecution, erected a Kutcha hut in 1963 at a distance of 60 ft. from the centre of the road. 3. A perusal of the complaints pertaining to these appeals will show that in each case a scale map was filed on behalf of the complainant. The scale maps filed or relied on by the complainant appear to have been prepared in each case after necessary survey. from the centre of the road. 3. A perusal of the complaints pertaining to these appeals will show that in each case a scale map was filed on behalf of the complainant. The scale maps filed or relied on by the complainant appear to have been prepared in each case after necessary survey. It appears, however, that evidence was not recorded in most of the cases, presumably because the Magistrate was of the opinion that if the complaints failed due to legal infirmity it would not be necessary to go into facts or to record any findings of fact in respect of each complaint. In some cases, however, some evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the maps produced and relied on by the prosecution in those cases were proved and exhibited, e.g. in cases giving rise to appeals nos. 1459/65 and 1501/65. In my opinion, the fact that evidence had not been adduced in most cases is hardly of any importance and for that reason only the cases concerned cannot be remanded for retrial. The obvious reason for not accepting such a course, to my mind, is furnished by the fact that specific allegations were made by the prosecution in the complaints themselves. Upon a scrutiny of all the complaints I have not been able to find a single case in which the building said to have been illegally erected fell outside the area included within 100 ft. from the centre line of the road on either side. Factually, therefore, the admitted position which emerged out of the complaints themselves was that all the buildings in question were situate within 100 ft. from the centre line of the road on either side. The learned Magistrate, therefore, cannot be said to have made any arbitrary or erroneous assumption and it matters little as to whether any specific admission or concession had been made by the prosecution before him or net. 4. I will now proceed to consider the question of law which has arisen in the cases and the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents. To appreciate the legal question and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to reproduce some of the material provisions of the UP Act, as well as the Central Act. To appreciate the legal question and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to reproduce some of the material provisions of the UP Act, as well as the Central Act. I will first reproduce the material provisions of the UP Act. The words "building" and "road" have respectively been defined in S. 2 (2) and 2 (6) of -the UP Act as follows : "building" means a house, hut, shed or other roofed structure for whatsoever purpose and of whatsoever material constructed, and every part thereof, and includes a wall or masonary platform or masonary ditch or drain, but does not include a tent or other such portable and merely temporary shelter : "road" means a metalled road maintained by the State Government, the Government of India or a local authority, or a route demarcated by the State Government, the Government of India or a local authority with a view to constructing along it a metalled road, and includes a national highway." It may be noted here that the word "road" as originally defined did not include a national highway, and the words in the definition 'includes a national highway" were added firstly by the UP Ordinance IV of 1964, and subsequently by UP Act VI of 1965, which repealed the Ordinance. The proviso to sub. S. (1) of S. 3 of the UP Act, which has already been quoted above was also added under the aforesaid Ordinance and the Act. I may, however, quote here the Hindi version of the said proviso, because it was urged by the learned counsel for the State that the English translation of the proviso is not so explicit and clear as the original Hindi version is. The Hindi version (transcribed in Roman Script) reads : "Pratibandh yeh hai ki Rashtriya rajpath ki dasha men, sarak ko hi niyantrit chhetra nahin samjha jayega." 5. To my mind, however, even the Hindi text of the proviso in question does not materially alter the position. The word 'sarak' in Hindi does not connote anything more than the English word 'road'. They are synonymous and mean the same thing, viz., defined and/or demarcated land used as a line of communication or passage between two places for use of foot passengers, vehicles etc. The word 'sarak' in Hindi does not connote anything more than the English word 'road'. They are synonymous and mean the same thing, viz., defined and/or demarcated land used as a line of communication or passage between two places for use of foot passengers, vehicles etc. By themselves they or either of them cannot be held to mean or denote only the metalled portion of such passage or line of communication. Apart from the meaning of these words in common parlance, S. 4 of the Central Act, quoted below, negatives the contention that the proviso S. 3(1) of the UP Act has the effect of excluding only the metalled portion of the national highway from the ambit of S. 3 (1) of the Act : "All national highways shall vest in the Union, and for the purposes of this Act "highways" includes- (i) all lands appurtenant thereto, whether demarcated or not ; (ii) all bridges, culverts, tunnels, causeways, carriageways and other structures constructed on or across (such) highways :; (iii) all fences, trees, posts and boundary, furlong and mile stones of such highways or any land appurtenant to such highways." I cannot help observing in this connection that if the intention of the State Legislature was to exclude only the metalled portion of the highway from the operation of S. 3 (1), it failed to give expression to such intention. The difficulty further is that such legislative intent cannot be accepted as manifestly established by necessary implication. A "highway" as defined in S. 4 of the Central Act on being declared to be a national highway vests in the Union. Once such vesting takes place, the dominion of the State or States, in which the highway in question is located, over the highway is lost. As an inevitable consequence, statutory provisions like the ones contained in Sections 3 (1), 5, 7, and 13 of the UP Act, contained in the enactment of the State or States concerned no longer remained operative or enforceable pro-tanto such highway. Were it not so, the Central Govt. As an inevitable consequence, statutory provisions like the ones contained in Sections 3 (1), 5, 7, and 13 of the UP Act, contained in the enactment of the State or States concerned no longer remained operative or enforceable pro-tanto such highway. Were it not so, the Central Govt. or even the Union would have no legal right or power to erect or re-erect any "building" as defined in the UP Act without obtaining the Collector's permission under section 5 of that Act, and their officers acting in discharge of duty would be liable to be prosecuted, punished or otherwise proceeded against under section 13 thereof, on erecting or re-erecting any building without the permission of the Collector. It may, therefore, very well be that the proviso to sub-S. (1) of S. 3 of the UP Act was added by the State Legislature to eliminate or remove the conflict and repugnance between the State Act and the subsequent Central Act, and to ensure at the same time the continuance of the application and enforcement of the provisions of Sections 5, 13 and certain other Sections of the UP Act in respect of "controlled area" left over after the exclusion of the "highway" therefrom. That this was so finds support from sub-S. (8) of S. 3 of the UP Act, which runs thus- "Any notification issued or declaration made under this section with reference to road which subsequently becomes a national highway under National Highways Act, 1956 )Act No. XLVIII of 1956), shall, not withstanding the road so becoming a national highway, continue to be valid and to be in force." 6. The proviso to S. 3(1) of the UP Act was added by the same Amending Act (UP Act No. VI of 1965) by which sub-S. (8) was also added. Unquestionably, the proviso excludes some thing from the 'controlled area' or, so to say, truncates it, while sub-S. (8) preserves some thing. It would be sheer incongruity to say that the Legislature preserved intact the very same thing by one hand, which it took away by the other. The question which arises, therefore, is what has been taken away by the proviso, and what has been preserved. The answer to this question obviously is that what has been preserved is the operation of the notifications to the `controlled area' still remaining after the exclusion of the highway' therefrom. The question which arises, therefore, is what has been taken away by the proviso, and what has been preserved. The answer to this question obviously is that what has been preserved is the operation of the notifications to the `controlled area' still remaining after the exclusion of the highway' therefrom. "Highway" in the context, as already discussed and held above, does not mean its metalled portion only but the entire land lying between the boundary lines., of the passage or the line of communication, whether demarcated or not. In this view of the matter, in none of the appeals can the respondent or respondents be held to have erected or re-erected any building over "controlled area" within the meaning of the UP Act, This, however, does not bring us to the terminus ad quem. 7. Before considering the matter with reference to the facts of the instant cases it would, in my opinion, be appropriate here to mention and consider the argument which was raised by Mr. B.N. Sapru appearing on behalf of some of the respondents. It was urged by the learned counsel that under Entry No. 23 of List I (Union List) of Sch. VII of the Constitution of India, Parliament alone has the exclusive power to make laws in respect of or relating to highway' declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highway. It was further submitted by Mr. Sapru that under Entry No. 93 of the said List Parliament alone again has the exclusive power to make laws in respect of or relating to offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in the list ("List I"). In this connection, referring to Entry no. 13 of List II (State List) of the same Schedule, Mr. Sapru pointed out that under the said entry the legislative power of the State Legislature extends only to communications, that is to say, roads, bridges, ferries and other means of communication not specified in List I. He also referred to Entry no. 64 of the said List which embraces offences against laws, with respect to any of the matters in this list (List II). 64 of the said List which embraces offences against laws, with respect to any of the matters in this list (List II). The contention was that once Parliament enacted a law declaring a highway to be a national highway, the power of the State Legislature of the State in which the highway in question is situate to make laws in respect of,the same highway' completely ceased; and further that the laws already enacted by such State Legislature concerning the highway stood completely abrogated. In support of this contention reliance was placed by the learned counsel on Cl. (1) of Article 254 of the Constitution, which reads as follows : "If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of any existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of Cl. (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void." Here, it may be mentioned that in the instant cases neither the State Act nor the Central Act was enacted in exercise of legislative powers relating to any of the Entries in the Concurrent List. Therefore, if the State Act or any of its provisions is held to be repugnant to the subsequent Central Act or any of its provisions, the State Act or the provisions thereof which are so repugnant must be held to be void. I may mention that in this connection it was urged by the learned counsel for the State that if the court was inclined to take a view that on account of the repugnancy u/Art. 254 (1) of the Constitution, the State Act or any provisions thereof had become void, notice should be given to the learned Advocate General before any judicial pronouncement in this behalf is made. For the reasons stated below, however, I do not consider it necessary to give notice to the learned Advocate General of the State of UP or to declare that the State Act or any provisions thereof had become void in consequence of the impact of the Central Act thereon. 8. I have already observed earlier that the State Legislature of UP by amending UP Act X of 1945 by UP Act No. VI of 1965 avoided or eliminated conflict between the Central Act and the State Act and the repugnancy of the provisions of the State Act with the provisions of the Central Act. It is well settled that a harmonious construction must as far as possible be given so as to avoid any legislation being held void or ultra vires. In the view which I have already expressed, namely, that by adding the proviso to sub-S. (1) of S. 3. of the UP Act, the State Legislature excepted "the highway" as defined tinder the Central Act from "the controlled area", and thereby preserved the operation and enforceability of the State Act to the remaining portion of the controlled area, it does not appear to me to be necessary at all to decide whether the UP Act or any provision thereof, as amended by the Amending Act of 1965, did or did not become void on account of any repugnanacy with the Central Act. 9. Reverting to the consideration of the case with reference to material facts, it may be mentioned that all the constructions in the instant cases, as. disclosed by the complaints themselves, were erected between the years 1961 and 1964 at a time when the UP Act had not undergone any change by legislative process, but the Central Act had come into force with effect from April 15, 1957 vesting the highway (Grand Trunk Road) in the Union on the the said highway being declared to be National Highway No. 2. Subsequently, but before any of the constructions had been erected, by a notification dated April 13, 1960, land upto a distance of 220 yards from the central line of the G. T. Road on either side was declared to be "controlled area" under section 3 of the UP Act. Subsequently, but before any of the constructions had been erected, by a notification dated April 13, 1960, land upto a distance of 220 yards from the central line of the G. T. Road on either side was declared to be "controlled area" under section 3 of the UP Act. As a result of the vesting of the said highway in the Union, the State of UP had, however, already lost dominion over It, but in the meantime the following notification No. S. R. O. 1181 dated April 13, 1957 was issued by the Central Government under section 5 of the Central Act : "In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), the Central Government hereby directs that the functions in relation to the execution of works pertaining to each of the national highways described in col. 2 of the Schedule hereto annexed shall be exercisable also by the State Government specified in col. 3 of the Schedule against such highway, subject to the condition that the State Government concerned shall, in the exercise of such functions, be bound to comply with the rules for the time being in force made under the said Act." The Schedule to the aforesaid notification shows that power under the notification was conferred on the State Government of UP in respect of National Highway No. 2, that is, the Grand Trunk Road. under section 5 of the Central Act, the Central Government has been made responsible for the development and maintenance in proper repair of national highways. This function, however, has been permitted to be delegated by the Central Government to the Government of a State. Therefore, under the notification dated April 13, 1957 the power of the State Government to maintain G.T. Road is derived by virtue of delegation of such power by the Central Government to it and not by virtue of any of its own powers as such. For the decision of the instant cases, however, it does not appear to me to be necessary to pursue this matter further and to decide whether by virtue of any act of maintaining G. T. Road by the State Government the controlled area would also extend to the whole of the land lying within a span of 220 yards from the central line of the G. T. Road on either side. The reasons why the decision of this question does not appear to me to be necessary are furnished by the provisions of the UP Ordinance IV of 1964, by which in the first instance UP Act X of 1945 was amended, and UP Act VI of 1965, by which the said Ordinance was repealed and permanent amendments were effected in UP Act X of 1945. 10. The aforesaid Ordinance was promulgated on December 10, 1964, as also published in the UP Gazette Extra Ordinary of the same date. In view of the repeal of the Ordinance by the substantive Act No. VI of 1965 it is not necessary to refer to any of the provisions of the Ordinance. Sub-S. (2) of S. 1. of UP Act VI of 1965 provided that Sections 2 & 3 of the amending Act shall be deemed to have come into force on April 15, 1957 and the remaining sections shall come into force at once. By S. 2 of this Act the definition of the word `road' in Act X of 1945 was amended so as to include a metalled road maintained also by the Government of India and a national highway as well. S. 3 of the Amending Act introduced two changes Firstly a proviso to sub-S. (1) of S. 3 was added and secondly, sub-S. (8) to the same section was added. Sections 4 and 5 of the amended Act provided as follows : "S. 4-Validation of Notifications, etc. - Every notification issued, every order or declaration made every proceeding or other action taken under the principal Act before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been issued, made or taken under the State Act as amended by this Act and not with standing any judgment, decree or order of any court to the contrary, shall be deemed to be, and always to have been, valid. section 5 - Savings-Nothing contained in this Act shall render any person liable for punishment under sub-S. (1) of S. 13 of the principal Act by season of any act which was not an offence punishable under that sub-section before the commencement of this Act." Let us now examine the effect and consequence of the aforesaid Sections 4 and S. The declarations of "controlled area" u/S. a of the UP Act, with which we are concerned in the instant cases, are all posterior to April 15, 1957. By virtue of S. 4 of the Amendment Act this declaration must be deemed to have been issued or made under UP Act X of 1945 as amended by UP Act VI of 1965. Therefore, necessarily the declarations must be read in conjunction with and subject to the proviso to sub-S. (1) of S. 3 added by the Amendment Act of 1965. The result of this can only be that the controlled area must be deemed not to have included the highway from the very inception of the declarations dated April 13, 1960 and other declarations made after April 15, 1957. If this be so, and I am clearly of opinion that this is the correct legal position, all the constructions made in the instant cases in respect of which the various complaints had been filed cannot be held to have been erected on land covered by the controlled area. Therefore, the respondents in these appeals cannot be held to have committed any offence punishable under section 13 (1) of the UP Act. S. 5 of the Amendment Act only affords protection against liability to be punished under sub S. (1) of S. 13 of UP Act X of 1945 by reason of any act which was not an offence punishable under that sub-section before the commencement of the Amendment Act. The said section, however, does not provide that any person who had become liable to be punished u/sub-S. (1) of S. 13 of the UP Act X of 1945 by reason of any act, which was an offence punishable under that sub-section before the commencement of the Amendment Act will continue to remain so liable, notwithstanding the amendments. The said section, however, does not provide that any person who had become liable to be punished u/sub-S. (1) of S. 13 of the UP Act X of 1945 by reason of any act, which was an offence punishable under that sub-section before the commencement of the Amendment Act will continue to remain so liable, notwithstanding the amendments. The reason why a provision to that effect was not made in the Amendment Act is furnished by sub S. (2) of S. 1 and S. 4 of the Amendment Act itself, under which retrospective effect has clearly been given to the amendments introduced in the principal Act and also to the Notifications or declarations previously made under under the same. In the circumstances it must, therefore, be held that all the respondents were not liable to be prosecuted and punished under section 13 (1) of the UP Act for having erected buildings within a distance of 100 feet from the centre line of the G.T. Road on either side, because the land lying in that area by virtue of proviso to sub-S. (1) of S. 3 of the UP Act has to be deemed to have been excepted from the controlled area with retrospective effect from April 15, 1957. 11. It now remains to consider some decisions of this Court on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the State. The first decision on which reliance was placed by him on behalf of the appellant is the judgment of D. S. Mathur, J. in Bhulli v. State, (1964 AWR 512). This judgment is dated May 6, 1964. On that date neither the UP Ordinance No. IV of 1964 nor UP Act VI of 1965 had come into existence. This decision, therefore, has hardly any bearing on the questions which have arisen in the instant cases. 12. The second case on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the State is the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in SDO Hasanganj Distt. Unnao and others v. Mohd. Bashir, (1966 AWR 276). The following observations made by the learned Judges in that case were particularly relied upon : "Once the land on the side of the road was declared to he controlled area, it remained controlled area even though the road became a national highway and ceased to be "road". Unnao and others v. Mohd. Bashir, (1966 AWR 276). The following observations made by the learned Judges in that case were particularly relied upon : "Once the land on the side of the road was declared to he controlled area, it remained controlled area even though the road became a national highway and ceased to be "road". It could cease to be controlled area only if the notification was withdrawn and in no other manner." "In any case, after the amendment of the definition by the UP Amendment Act of 1965 the position is left without any doubt. With effect from April 15, 1957 even a national highway is a "road" within the meaning of the UP Act. Therefore, a notification under section 3 (1) can be issued in respect of a national high way, and a notification validly issued in respect of a road prior to April 15, 1957 remains valid, inspite of the enforcement of the National Highways Act." In the case of S.D.O. Hasanganj, Distt. Unnao (supra) the effect of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the U.P. Act added by the Amendment Act of 1965 was not considered by the learned Judges. It appears that their notice was not drawn either to the said proviso or to sub-section (8) of Section 3 of the U.P. Act. The learned Judges further do not appears to have given any decision with reference to a notification declaring 'controlled area' after April 15, 1957. This case relied on by the learned counsel, therefore, does not apply to the instant cases and is also clearly distinguishable. 13. The last case upon which reliance was placed by the learned counsel is a judgment of a Division Bench dated March 20, 1969 in Govt. Cr. A. No. 593 of 1966 and others connected cases. In this case also the attention of the learned Judges evidently had not been drawn to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U.P. Act, nor to subsection (8) thereof. which had to be read in the light of the provisions contained in Section 4, of the U.P. Amendment Act VI of 1965. Further. In this case also the attention of the learned Judges evidently had not been drawn to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U.P. Act, nor to subsection (8) thereof. which had to be read in the light of the provisions contained in Section 4, of the U.P. Amendment Act VI of 1965. Further. in the cases which had come up for decision before the Division Bench, it does not appears to have been contended or shown that the buildings complained of had been erected without permission on land falling within the area of highway. as defined in Section 4, of the Central Act, excluded from controlled area by the proviso in question. In the circumstances, I am of opinion that this decision is also not applicable to the instant cases and in any event, it is clearly distinguishable. 14. For all the reasons stated above the appeals fail and are dismissed.