JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - This reference has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge recommending that the order passed by the Tahsildar, Ballia, be set aside. The facts giving rise to this reference may be stated briefly as follows : 2. The Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Ballia. filed a complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate for taking action against Baijnath and Vishwanath under sections-299/300 of the Municipalities Act on the allegation that the accused were the owners of the house situated within the Municipal limits of Ballia. That house was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition. A notice was said to have been issued to the accused persons calling upon them to demolish the house but it remained uncomplied with. One of the accused appeared before the Tahsildar, to whom the case had been transferred and he stated that he was unable to comply with that notice because the house was occupied by tenants. The learned Tahsildar, therefore, passed the impugned order on 9th September, 1970 directing the accused persons to expeditiously demolish the house and the Nagar Palika should take necessary action in that behalf. Sahadeo Rain who happened to occupy that premises preferred a revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Ballia, against that order of Tahsildar and contended that the order was wrong and illegal. The contentions raised by Sahadeo Ranrfound favour with the learned Additional Sessions judge who heard the revision. He, therefore, has made this reference. 3. The contentions raised before the learned Additional Sessions judge were reiterated before me as well as on behalf of Sahadeo Ram. Section 263 of the Municipalities Act gives power to the Municipal Board to prevent danger from ruinous buildings. A board may require by notice the owner or occupier of any land or building to demolish or to repair in such manner as it deems necessary any building, wall, bank, or other structure, or anything affixed thereto or to remove any tree belonging to such owner or in the possession of such occupier, which appears to the Board to be in a ruinous condition or dangerous to persons or property. One of the accused persons who appeared before the learned Tahsildar admitted to have received such notice issued under section 263 by the Nagar Palika, Ballia. That notice was not complied with. One of the accused persons who appeared before the learned Tahsildar admitted to have received such notice issued under section 263 by the Nagar Palika, Ballia. That notice was not complied with. The Nagar Palika then filed a complaint under sections 299/300 of the Municipalities Act. It may, how- ever, be noted that disobedience of the notice issued by the Nagar Palika to an individual is dealt with under section 307 of the Municipalities Act. Section 307 of the Act provides that if a person fails to comply with such a notice the Board may cause such work to be executed or such thing to be provided or done and may recover all expenses incurred by it on such account. It further provides that a person to whom the notice has been given and fails to comply shall be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a fine which may extend to one thou. sand rupees, and in case of a continuing breach, to a further fine which may extend to twenty-five rupees for every day. Even if this complaint is treated to have been made under section 307 of the Act the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to pass an order for demolition of the building on a complaint made by the Nagar Palika. Reference may also in this connection be made to section 310 of the Act which provides that if, aft(r receiving information of the intention of the owner of any building or laud to take any action in respect thereof in compliance with a notice under this Act, the occupier refuses to allow such owner to take such action, the owner may apply to a Magistrate and the Magistrate upon proof of such refusal may make an order in writing requiring the occupier to allow the owner to execute all such works, with respect to such building or land, as may be necessary for compliance with the notice. 4. Hence, if an owner receives a notice and he finds himself unable to comply with the same because of refusal on the part of the occupier of the building he may take suitable action under section 310 of the Act and then such action is initiated necessary order in the manner envisaged by section 310 (2) may be passed by the Magistrate. Even under this section the Magistrate cannot pass an order for demolishing a building. Even under this section the Magistrate cannot pass an order for demolishing a building. He may require the occupier to allow the owner to execute all such work in respect of the building as may be necessary for compliance with the notice. If after expiration of the prescribed period the occupier continues to refuse to allow the owner to execute such work, the occupier continues to refuse to allow the owner to execute such work, the occupier shall be liable upon conviction, to a fine which may extend to twenty- five rupees for every day during which he has so continued to refuse. Sub- section (4) of section 310 provides that every owner, during the continuance of such refusal, shall be discharged from any penalties to which he might other- wise have become liable by reason of the default in executing such work. 5. No other provision in the Municipalities Act has been brought to my notice which empowers a magistrate to pass an order for demolishing a building. That being so, the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar, Ballia dated 9th September, 1970 was illegal. 6. In the circumstances, the reference is accepted and the order dated 9th September, 1970 passed by the Tahsildar, Ballia, is set aside.