ORDER S. Malik, J. - Heard parties. 2. This is an application in revision by Riasat Ali Khan against the judgment dated 31-5-1968 passed by Shri T.C. Hariomal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur, upholding the conviction of the Applicant u/s 13(2) of the UP Roadside Land Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and reducing the fine imposed by the learned Magistrate from Rs. 2/- per day to Re. 1/- per day during the continuance of the encroachment. 3. The relevant facts are that the Applicant was convicted and sentenced on 13-9-1966 for constructing a building, in which the Applicant opened a shop, within the controlled area by the side of Bareilly Moradabad road. As the Applicant did not remove the building after his conviction, a second complaint u/s 13 of the Act was filed against him which resulted in the impugned orders passed by Shri J.P. Garg, Magistrate First Glass, Rampur on 29-3-1968 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge already mentioned. 4. It was contended on behalf of the Applicant that a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act will show that the Applicant could be tried, convicted and sentenced for a continuing contravention if the offence committed by him was covered by the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act as laid down in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. 5. The contention appears to be sound. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act lays down: 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 provisions of Section 5 or in contravention of any conditions imposed by an order u/s 6 or Section 7, or while Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 runs as follow: 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 the 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. 6. 6. A perusal of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 clearly shows that the person concerned could be convicted in respect of an unauthorised building constructed in contravention of Section 5 of the Act for erecting it or after it has fallen down or is removed, for re-erecting it in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Act. In this case we are concerned only with the erection of the building. There is nothing in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 from which it may appear that a person could be convicted a second time for continuing to have a building in the controlled area illegally erected after he has once, been convicted u/s 13(1)(a) for erecting it. Had it been the intention of the Legislature to punish a person for a continuing contravention in respect of buildings etc. covered by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13, the Act would have said so, as in the case of a person who has been made liable to be punished for a continuing contravention Under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 when the contravention is one covered by Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act which prohibits the use of land within a controlled area for the purposes of a charcoal kiln, pottery kiln or lime kiln and for use of such land for a-brick field or brick kiln except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence from the Collector renewable annually. 7. It is surprising as to how the Applicant has been convicted Under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act which runs as follows: Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1), the Collector may order any person who has committed a breach of the provisions 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 a 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 an arrear of land revenue. There is nothing in Sub-section (2) of Section 13 empowering prosecution or conviction of a person for a 'continuing contravention'. Sub-section (2) merely empowers the Collector to have the unauthorised construction removed or if the controlled area was put to any other unauthorised use, to have the area restored to its original state. It also lays down that if the wrongdoer failed to carry out the order passed by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 within the stipulated period, the Collector could have the unauthorised construction removed and the land brought to its original state and recover the cost incurred in doing so from the person responsible, as arrear of land revenue. 8. In this case the Collector could have ordered the Applicant to remove the unauthorised construction or building within the stipulated period as laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 13 and if the Applicant failed to carry out that order, the Collector could himself get the construction removed and the area put to its original state and recover the cost incurred in doing so from the Applicant treating it as arrear of land revenue due from him. There is no provision in the Act under which the Applicant could have been retried, reconvicted and resentenced in the manner the courts below have done. 9. The application, therefore, is allowed. The judgments of the learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, dated 29-3-1968 and 31-5-1968 respectively are set aside and the Applicant is acquitted. In case the Applicant has deposited any fine, the same shall be refunded.