ORDER M.N. Shukla, J. - This revision raises an important question with regard to the interpretation of Section 16 of the UP Roadside Land Control Act (UP Act No. 16 of 1945) hereinafter called the Act. It is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Meerut, affirming an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur, on 18-3-1968 convicting the Applicant for an offence u/s 13 of the Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The facts of the case are that by a notification dated 10-12-1955 issued Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act the land upto 220 feet on either side of Delhi-Garhmukteshwar Road was declared "controlled area". The Applicant raised some constructions on mile No. 39, furlong No. 3 on the right side of the road near village Babugarh at a distance of 44 feet from the centre of the road without obtaining any permission from the Collector as provided in Section 5 of the Act. A complaint was, therefore, preferred for the prosecution of the Applicant on 25-10-1967 for the offence u/s 13 of the Act. 3. The Applicant pleaded that the impugned constructions existed since before the notification dated 10-12-1955 was issued and that no fresh constructions had been made by him. 4. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses including Sri D.C. Gupta, Overseer (PW 1), who stated the entire prosecution case and added that the impugned constructions had been made after the issue of the notification and that he had last seen the constructions being raised in April 1967. 5. The specific case of the defence was that though there was originally a kachcha shop prior to the notification, the same was demolished and re-erected and converted into a pacca shop in its present shape some time in 1960. Be that as it may, it is the case of the parties that the impugned constructions came into existence after the date of the notification. In these circumstances the question arose as to whether the Applicant was guilty of the offence u/s 13 of the Act or not. 6. In the memo of revision a number of grounds were taken on behalf of the Applicant but they were not found to have any substance. In these circumstances the question arose as to whether the Applicant was guilty of the offence u/s 13 of the Act or not. 6. In the memo of revision a number of grounds were taken on behalf of the Applicant but they were not found to have any substance. Instead the learned Counsel for the Applicant took a ground which was not taken in the memo of revision and I allowed him to add that ground as the point was one of law and there was also factual material on record in the shape of evidence led by the Applicant. It was contended by Sri D.P. Mittal on behalf of the Applicant that on the evidence in this case it was conclusively proved that the case came within the ambit of the saving clause enacted in Section 16 of the Act and hence the re-erection of the shop in question by the Applicant was exempted from the effect of the notification issued u/s 3 of the Act. The argument was that both erection or re-erection of buildings on open land in certain cases specified in Clause (a) of Section 16 was protected and so the Applicant did not commit any offence. Section 16(a) of the Act runs as under: 16. Savings--Nothing in this Act shall apply to-- (a) the erection or re-erection of buildings upon land included in the inhabited site of any village as entered and demarcated in the revenue records or upon sites in a municipal, notified or town area that are already built up on the date of the issue of the notification Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of this Act. The language of the section indicates that it is not only the re erection of a building but also the construction of a fresh building which would be protected by the exception created under it. The re-erection of a building connotes the idea of a previous structure demolished and on the same foundation a fresh structure raised. Erection of a building on the other hand conveys the idea of an altogether fresh construction made. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicant in either case the exception envisaged by Section 16(a) would be applicable to the facts of the case. He relied in this connection on the statement of Sri D.G. Gupta (PW 1), the Overseer. Erection of a building on the other hand conveys the idea of an altogether fresh construction made. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicant in either case the exception envisaged by Section 16(a) would be applicable to the facts of the case. He relied in this connection on the statement of Sri D.G. Gupta (PW 1), the Overseer. He deposed in substance that there was abadi near the impugned shop and that on either side of the road there were shopkeepers selling their wares and there were also shops on either side in existence. The courts below, however, did not record any finding on the facts which were necessary for applying the exception contained in Section 16 of the Act for the simple reason that the point was not raised there. However, since I have allowed that ground to be canvassed here, it is essential that clear findings on the relevant issues which arise for applying the provisions of Section 16 of the Act must be recorded. Three salient points have to be borne in mind when applying the provisions of Section 16(a) of the Act. Firstly, it has to be ascertained on evidence as to whether this was a case of erection of an altogether new construction or re-erection of a building depending on whether the old shop existed on the same plot of land or the foundation was demolished and another structure raised at the same place. Secondly, it has to be decided as to what kind of building or buildings existed on the site at the time of the issue of the notification. Thirdly, it has to be categorically decided as to whether the site was a "built up" site. The answer to the question as to whether the Applicant committed any offence u/s 13 of the Act would depend ultimately on as to whether the site in question could be deemed to be a "built up" site within the meaning of the term as used in Section 16(a) of the Act. The answer to the question as to whether the Applicant committed any offence u/s 13 of the Act would depend ultimately on as to whether the site in question could be deemed to be a "built up" site within the meaning of the term as used in Section 16(a) of the Act. I am inclined to construe that provision in a manner which leads to the conclusion that even if there is an altogether fresh building erected after the issue of the notification and without the previous permission of the Collector in writing as required by Section 5 of the Act, it will be covered by the exception provided that the site itself was a "built up" site on the date of the issue of the notification. One of the meanings of the word "site" given in Webster's New International Dictionary is "a space of ground occupied or to be occupied by a building." In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Third Edition, page 356, "a building site" is defined as "land reasonably fit for building on at once." It, therefore, follows that if a land is bereft of any structure it cannot be a building site. On the contrary, even the existence of a small structure on a vast track of land might suffice to give it the character of a built up site. It is not possible to lay down any absolute test for ascertaining the existence or otherwise of a building site. In this regard the finding must vary on the facts of each individual case. However, the guiding factors appear to be the nature of the structures built and the area of the space or land involved. If the structures are so insufficient as to be regarded as inconsiderable in proportion to the area on which they stand the inference might be justified that the site is not a "built up" site. On the contrary, in certain circumstances even a modicum of construction might convert the site into a built up site. In Webster's New International Dictionary the meaning of the word "built up" is given as "of a land area: having many buildings: covered with buildings." The definition seems to emphasise the sufficiency of the building structures in relation to the area of the site involved. In Webster's New International Dictionary the meaning of the word "built up" is given as "of a land area: having many buildings: covered with buildings." The definition seems to emphasise the sufficiency of the building structures in relation to the area of the site involved. The words "built up" occurring in Section 16(a) of the Act govern the preceding words "upon site" and not "buildings" occurring earlier in the same clause. 7. Therefore, in my opinion the conviction of the Applicant cannot be sustained on the findings which have been recorded by the courts below. There was other material and there were certain crucial aspects of the case to which I have already adverted above on which a finding was called for and then alone the ultimate liability of the Applicant could be adjudicated upon. 8. In these circumstances I allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the Applicant and send the case back to the Magistrate concerned for deciding it afresh in the light of the observations made by me after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead such evidence as they may desire.