JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh. 2. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Provincial Division, Aligarh, filed a complaint against the applicant in the court of the learned Magistrate 1st class, Aligarh, stating therein that the applicant has constructed a wall within the controlled area of grandtrunk road at mile 804 furlong No. 3 without the permission of the District Magistrate, Aligarh. 3. The learned Magistrate summoned the applicant, who pleaded guilty and begged the court that he may be pardoned. 4. The learned Magistrate by his order dated September 25, 1967 decided not to record any further evidence in the case in view of the admission made by the applicant and found the applicant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 13 of the United Provinces Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 and convicted him under that section and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 501/- and further ordered that in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Magistrate further directed the applicant to remove the construction of the wall within three months from the date of the order failing which he ordered that the cost of the removal of the construction shall be recovered from the applicant as arrears of land revenue. 5. Against the order passed by the learned Magistrate the applicant preferred a revision which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, who, by his order dated February 13, 1968, has made the present reference. 6. I have heard Sri V. B. Gupta, learned counsel in support of the reference and Sri A. Hajela, the learned brief holder for the State who has opposed the reference. 7. 6. I have heard Sri V. B. Gupta, learned counsel in support of the reference and Sri A. Hajela, the learned brief holder for the State who has opposed the reference. 7. Section 13 of the United Provinces Roadside Land Control Act deals with offences and penalties and sub-section (1) of Section 13 reads as follows: " (1) any person who - (a) erects or re-erects any building or makes or extends any excavation or lays out any means of access to a road in contravention of the provision of Section 5 or in contravention of any conditions imposed by an order under Section 6 or S. 7, or (b) uses any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 12, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and, in case of a continuing contravention, with a further fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day after the date of the first conviction during which he is proved to have persisted in the contravention." 8. The Magistrate was, therefore, fully justified in convicting the applicant under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act but could not order him to removed the construction of the wall which could be done only by the Collector under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act which reads as follows: "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Collector may order any person who has committed a breach of the provision of the said sub-section to restore to its original state or to bring into conformity with the conditions which have been violated, as the case may be, any building or land in respect of which contravention such as is described in the said sub-section has been committed, and if such person fails to do so within three months of the order, may himself take such measures as may appear to him to be necessary to give effect to the order, and the cost of such measures shall be recoverable from such person as arrear of land revenue." 9. It is, therefore, obvious from perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 13 that only the Collector of Aligarh was competent to pass an order for the removal of the construction of the wall and the learned Magistrate was not competent to pass any such order while exercising his power under sub-sec. (1) of Section 13 of the Act. Sri A. Hajela, the learned brief holder for the State submitted that the Collector has been defined by sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act as follows: "`Collector' includes any authority appointed by the State Government, by notification in the official Gazette, to perform all or any of the functions of the Collector under this Act;" 10. The learned brief holder for the State was, however, unable to show me any notification published in the official gazette authorising the learned Magistrate to perform all or any of the functions of the Collector under the United Provinces Roadside Land Control Act, 1945. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the orders passed by the courts below I agree with the referring court that the learned Magistrate was incompetent to pass an order regarding the removal of the construction of the wall while convicting the applicant under Section 13 of the United Provinces Roadside Land Control Act, 1945. 12. The result, therefore, is that I accept this reference and set aside only that part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate by which he directed the applicant to remove the wall in question within three months and on his failure to do so the cost of removing the wall shall be recovered from him as arrear of land revenue.