Judgment This petition is filed by the General Manager, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Nandambakkam, to quash the proceeding initiated by the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Nandambakkam in C.C.No.339 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate I, Saidapet. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The petitioner company was allotted certain land of an extent of 200 acres on which the factory of the petitioner company is situate. The land of the petitioner was only fenced by barbed wire fence. But on account of persons trespassing inspite of the fence, the petitioner company seems to have decided to put up pucca compound wall and erected the same. The Executive Officer, Nandambakkam Town Panchayat was aggrieved by the petitioner erecting a wall and started prosecution under sections 56 and 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act and 82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The case of the petitioner is that both the charges are liable to be quashed on account of the fact that no offence is made out as contemplated under the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act and Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The first charge is one under sections 56 and 57 of Town and Country Planning Act. Sections 56 and 57 deal with power to require removal of and stop unauthorised developments respectively. We have to consider whether the construction of the compound wall amounts to development carried out on the premises. The first charge is one under sections 56 and 57 of Town and Country Planning Act. Sections 56 and 57 deal with power to require removal of and stop unauthorised developments respectively. We have to consider whether the construction of the compound wall amounts to development carried out on the premises. Development is defined under section 2(13) as follows: "Development means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan prepared under this Act and shall include the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, or over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or land: Provided that for the purposes of this Act, the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed to involve development of the land that is to say- (a) the carrying out of any temporary works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, being works which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building; (b) the carrying out by a local authority of any temporary works required for the maintenance or improvement of a road, or works carried out on land within the boundaries of the road; (c) the carrying out by a local authority or statutory undertaker of any temporary works for the purpose of inspecting repairing or renewing any sewers, mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus, including the breaking open of any street or other land for that purpose; (d) the use of any building or other land within the curtilage of a dwelling house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of dwelling house as such; and (e) the use of any land for the purpose of agriculture, gardening, or forestry (including afforestation) and the use for any purpose specified in this clause of this proviso of any building occupied together with the land so used." From a reading of the definition ‘development’ it is clear, it can only relate to anything done on the land and to develop the land as a house site. Mere putting up of a compound wall enclosing the land in the place of a fence already existing, may not amount to a development as per the definition in section 2(13). Mere putting up of a compound wall enclosing the land in the place of a fence already existing, may not amount to a development as per the definition in section 2(13). No doubt, for any building activity, a licence from the Panchayat is necessary under section 49. We have to consider whether the building of a compound wall will amount to building. Building is defined under section 2(7) as a house, out-house, stable, latrine, godown, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) and any other structure whether of masonry, bricks, mud, wood, metal or any other material whatsoever. The definition in section 2, sub-section 7(a) specifically excludes a boundary wall. Under the circumstances, the building of a boundary wall will not amount to building within the meaning of Town and Country Planning Act. Hence, the construction of the compound wall in the place of the fence will neither amount to development as contemplated in section 2(13) or building as contemplated under section 2(7). Even under section 2, sub-section (1) of Panchayats Act, the boundary wall is specifically excluded. So, by building a boundary wall, it cannot be said that one has violated section 82(1) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Mere putting up of a boundary wall will not amount to development or building as defined in both Town and Country Planning Act and Panchayats Act. Hence, the petitioner cannot be taken to task for the same. 3. The second charge levied is the petitioner has unlawfully closed a drain constructed by the Panchayat which is an offence under section 82(1)(d) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Section 82(1)(d) runs thus: "82. (1) No person shall, except as permitted by rules made under this Act and except in accordance with the conditions imposed by any licence made requisite by such rules- (d) erect any building over any sewer or drain or any part thereof." Section 82 itself states that it relates to prohibition against obstructions in or over public roads. It is admitted that the petitioner’s property does not about any public road. It is also not clear from the complaint whether the Panchayat Board has constructed any drain in the property. Under the circumstances, there is no possibility of the petitioner obstructing any drain constructed by the Panchayat. Thus, the second charge is also not sustainable. 4. It is admitted that the petitioner’s property does not about any public road. It is also not clear from the complaint whether the Panchayat Board has constructed any drain in the property. Under the circumstances, there is no possibility of the petitioner obstructing any drain constructed by the Panchayat. Thus, the second charge is also not sustainable. 4. In the result, no offence is made out from the materials on record in respect of both the charges and no useful purpose will be served by continuing the long pending case before the Magistrate. Hence, this petition is allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.339 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate are hereby quashed.