Order.- The primary question that arises for decision in this Revision Petition is whether written permission of the Village panchayat under section 53 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) is necessary for the digging of a sink pit for sewage water. The petitioner has been convicted under section 53 read with section 235 of the Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. The facts material for determination of this question are very few. The petitioner is resident of the village of Nimbalageri, within the limits of that Village Panchayat in Kudligi Taluka. He was served with a notice on 10th August, 1963, by the Village Panchayat, to close the sink pit (as he had constructed the same without its written permission) within eight days from the date of receipt of notice. The Petition replied to that notice stating that as the sewage water had been causing nuisance to the neighbours and creating insanitary conditions, he had dug out the sink pit so that the water could be made to sink through and he could cover the pit with stone slabs. As a result of his failure to close the pit, he was prosecuted for digging the pit without the written permission under section 53 of the Act. The petitioner’s plea was that section 53 did not require any written permission for sinking a pit, that the complaint as filed by the Secretary was not competent and that in the absence of Rules framed under the Act, he was not under any legal obligation to apply for permission. He further contended that the sink pit had been in existence for nearly seven years prior to the complaint. The learned Magistrate rejected all these contentions and convicted the petitioner as being guilty of on offence punishable under section 235(1)(a) of the Act for digging a pit without the written permission as required by section 53. It is unnecessary to discuss the other contentions raised by Mr. Hiremath for the petitioner since I consider that his main objections regarding the applicability of section 53 of the Act appears to be well-founded. Section 53 of the Act reads thus: “53. It is unnecessary to discuss the other contentions raised by Mr. Hiremath for the petitioner since I consider that his main objections regarding the applicability of section 53 of the Act appears to be well-founded. Section 53 of the Act reads thus: “53. Control of the erection of buildings.-(1) Subject to such Rules as may be prescribed, no person shall erect any building or alter or add to any existing building or reconstruct any building without the written permission of the Panchayat. Such permission shall be presumed to have been granted if no refusal of such permission is communicated within two months of the receipt of the application. * * * * * *” It is not necessary to refer to the other sub-sections of this section. It is common ground that no Rules have been framed by the Government as contemplated by this section. That is however immaterial for decision of the point at issue. The plain meaning of the section is that no person can erect any building, alter or add to any existing building or reconstruct any building without the written permission of the Panchayat. Mr. Mallimath appearing for the respondent Village Panchayat submitted that a sink pit being incidental to and essential for the necessary enjoyment of the main building, it should be held that the digging of a sink pit amounts to the making of an addition to the existing building. The words ‘add to any existing building’ under the context can only mean making of some addition by way of raising additional structure to the existing building. As the section stands, it does not seem to contemplate to cover anything done short of raising a structure. The learned Magistrate has taken the view that the digging of a sink pit is covered by section 2(9)(v) of the Act. In order to examine the correctness of this view, it is necessary to make a reference tocertain provisions in section 2 of the Act. Section 2(2) defines the term ‘building’ for the purposes of the Act. That definition is an inclusive definition and is to hold good ‘unless the context otherwise requires,‘as the opening words of the definition-section indicate. In order to examine the correctness of this view, it is necessary to make a reference tocertain provisions in section 2 of the Act. Section 2(2) defines the term ‘building’ for the purposes of the Act. That definition is an inclusive definition and is to hold good ‘unless the context otherwise requires,‘as the opening words of the definition-section indicate. According to this definition, ‘building’ includes “a house, out-house, shop, stable, ware-house, workshop, canopy, shed, hut or other enclosure whether used as a human dwelling or otherwise and shall include a wall, compound wall, fencing, verandah, platform, plinth, door-step and the like”. It is pertinent to mention that this inclusive definition enumerates different kinds of structures which fall within the meaning ofthe definition of ‘building’. The definition ends with the words ‘and the like’ implying thereby that other instances of structure to be brought under that definition must resemble any one of the items enumerated as falling within the definition of the word ‘building’. It is striking that all items that are enumerated therein are some sort of structures raised above the ground. None of the items enumerated under the definition has any reference to anything dug into the ground. In this connection section 2(9) may also be quoted: “2. It is striking that all items that are enumerated therein are some sort of structures raised above the ground. None of the items enumerated under the definition has any reference to anything dug into the ground. In this connection section 2(9) may also be quoted: “2. (9) ‘Erection or re-erection or enlargement’ of any building includes: (i) any material alteration or enlargement of any building; (ii) the conversion, by structural alteration, into a place of human habitation of any building not originally constructed for human habitation; (iii) the conversion of one or more places of human habitation into a greater number of such places; (iv) the conversion of two or more places of human habitation into a lesser number of such places; (v) such alteration of a building as would effect a change in the drainage or sanitary arrangements or materially affects its security; (vi) the addition of any rooms, buildings, out-houses or other structures to any building; (vii) the conversion, by any structural alteration, into a place of religious worship or into a building used for a sacred purpose, of any place or building not originally meant or constructed for such purpose; (viii) roofing or covering an open space between walls or buildings, in respect of the structure which is formed by roofing or covering such space; (ix) conversion into a stall, shop, warehouse or godown of any building not criginally constructed for use as such or vice versa; (x) construction on a wall adjoining any street or land not vested in the owner of the wall, a door, opening on such street or land;”. One general feature of the various clauses enumerated in this sub-section is that whether it is a case of alteration, conversion, addition or covering, it has reference only to some structure or building. The learned Magistrate’s view that digging of a pit for receiving or collecting sewage water from the bathroom would fall under clause (v) of this sub-section is obviously erroneous, because, the clause when analysed would require the following acts for invoking its application: (1) There should be an alteration of the building; (2) the alteration should effect a change in the drainage or sanitary arrangement; or (3) such alteration of the building should materially affect the security of the building. Prima facie so long as there is no alteration in a building, the clause would be wholly inapplicable. Prima facie so long as there is no alteration in a building, the clause would be wholly inapplicable. It is only where the alteration made to a building is such as would change the drainage or the sanitary arrangement already in existence or would affect the security of the building already in existence that there would be a breach of that clause. In the present case there is no change in the drainage or sanitary arrangement as the evidence does not disclose that there was any drainage or any sanitary arrangement before the pit in question was dug. It is therefore obvious. to me that the digging of a sink pit cannot amount to ‘erection of a building’ or ‘addition to an existing building’ as contemplated by section 53 of the Act. This view is further fortified by reference to section 63 which deals with the powers of a Village Panchayat as to sanitation, conservancy and drainage. That section empowers the Village Panchayat to require within a reasonable period the owner or occupier of a building, after a written notice, to remove any hut or privy or to construct private drain therefor or to alter or remove private drains thereof or to cleanse any building or land to the satisfaction of the Panchayat or to cleanse, deepen or close a well, pool, ditch, pit, pond, tank or any place containing or used for the collection of any drainage, filth or stagnant water which is injurious to health or offensive to the neighbourhood or is otherwise a source of nuisance, or to clear any land of any vegetation, undergrowth prickly pear, etc., which is considered to be injurious or dangerous to public health. From this section it can be easily inferred that the Legislature was well aware of the requirements of construction of ditches, pools, pits, ponds, etc., either for drainage or for collection of water within the village limits. If it was the intention of the Legislature that wells, pools, ditches, pits, ponds, etc., should be constructed only on the written permission of the Village Panchayat, then the Legislature would have either enlarged the scope of the inclusive definition of the word ‘building’ or would have suitably enlarged the scope of section 53 by adding expressions to cover its intentions. The enumeration of the various items like the pool, ditch, etc., in section 63(1)(iv) of the Act leads to the obvious inference that the Legislature was conscious of the fact that the construction and maintenance in proper condition of such items was essential for good sanitary conditions in villages. Things like ditches, pits, drainage, outlets may be constructed without any alteration in the building or without raising any structure subsequent to the erection of the house for which written permission is needed under section 53. So in the absence of any provision requiring a resident to obtain written permission for digging a pit or constructing a drainage or an outlet, it would be incorrect to hold that the petitioner was contravening the provisions of section 53 of the Act. It should be remembered that the Act is intended for the proper administration of villages in certain matters covered by the Act. Construction of drains, digging of pits or making arrangements for collection of manure are every day affairs in village life and it would be unreasonable restriction to require a villager to obtain a written permission for every activity of his conducive to comfortable living unless any provision of law expressly expects him to do so. The law would do so only if there is a public purpose behind it. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the petitioner contravened section 53 of the Act in digging the sink pit and that he was guilty of an offence punishable under section 235(1)(a)of the Act. I accordingly allow the revision petition, set aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquit the petitioner. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.