Summary
The respondent applied in the year 1939, to the Municipal Board, Gorakhpur for granting to him of a lease of plot No. 227 measuring 45'X20' adjoining Patri along with the road running from Golgarh to Alinagar in Gorakhpur. The Board declined to grant him the lease. On a second application dated 10-10-1945, the Municipal Board passed a resolution on 24-11-1945 granting the lease to the respondent. On 8-3-1946 the District Magistrate accorded his approval of the resolution of the Municipality. On 12-4-1946 the respondent executed a "KABULIYAT" in favour of the Municipal Board, Gorakhpur. On 23-4-1946 the respondent applied for permission to construct a house and submitted a plan for sanction. The plan was sanctioned by the Municipality on 8-5-1946.
On receipt of certain representations on 10-6-1947, the District Magistrate directed the Chairman of the Municipal Board not to allow the construction till decision was taken on the question. On 13-6-1947, the Chairman, Municipal Board directed the respondent not to proceed with the construction of the house. The State Government on being satisfied that the resolution regarding the grant of the lease was not within the competence of the Municipality, directed the Commissioner to cancel the lease granted to the respondent, whereupon the respondent was served with a notice on 13-7- 1948 cancelling the lease and calling upon him to remove the construction and deliver vacant possession within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The respondent filed a suit no.86 of 1948 for an injunction restraining the Municipal Board from demolishing or otherwise interfering with the construction made by him on the disputed land. The Civil Judge, Gorakhpur decreed the suit and that has become final.Thereafter, claiming the land as the Nazarul land belonging to the State, the appellant-State filed suit no.109 of 1949 in the Court of Civil Judge, Gorakhpur against the respondent Ata Mohd. for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove his material and construction and for a decree for possession over the land measuring 45'X20'. The Civil Judge Gorakhpur dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 3-10-1950. The appellants plaintiff preferred first appeal No. 27 of 1951 to the High Court of Allahabad. The appeal was heard by a Bench of two Judges but on a difference of opinion, the matter was referred to the third Judge. In accordance with the view of the majority, the appeal preferred by the appellant plaintiff was dismissed by its judgment dated 25th August, 1965. On a certificate granted by the High Court under Art.135 of the Constitution and also Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, the present appeal in this Court was filed by the plaintiff/appellant.1096 Allowing the appeal, the Court^HELD : 1. The Municipalities in various States were created under the respective Municipalities Acts in order to facilitate the efficient administration of the Municipal areas and to provide lighting, watering and maintaining of public streets and places. The duties of the Municipal Boards are specified in S. 6 of the U.P. Municipalities Act.Under S. 118 of the Act, the Municipal Board is empowered to manage or control any property entrusted to its management and control. The vesting of the property, in the Municipality is under S. 116 of the Act. S. 116 provides that subject to any special reservation made by the State Government, all property of the nature specified in this section and situated within the Municipality shall vest in and belong to the Board, and shall, with all property which may become vested in the Board, be under its direction, management and control. While under clause (f) of S. 116, all lands and other property transferred to the Board by the Government by gift, purchase or otherwise for local public purposes vest in the Municipality, under Cl. (g), the streets vest only qua streets and not as absolute property with the Municipality. In the present case the property falls within the definition of `Street' under section 2(23) of the Act. [1100 A-D, E-F, H]2. Though the street vested in the Municipal Council under section 116 of the U.P. Municipal Act, it does not transfer to the Municipality the right of the owner in the site or soil over which the street exists. Therefore, when a street ceases to be a highway by its being diverted to some other use, the interest of the Corporate body determines.Therefore, what is vested in the municipality under section 116(g) is the street qua street and if the Municipality put the street to any other user than that for which it was intended, the State as its owner, is entitled to intervene and maintain an action and to get any person in illegal occupation evicted. [1102 A, G, 1103 A-B]Municipal Board, Mangalur v. Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj,[1965] 2 S.C.R. 242; followed.See the full content of this document
Extract
State Of Uttar Pradesh VS. Ata Mohd.
PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs.RESPONDENT: ATA MOHD.DATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1980BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S.BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S.FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZACITATION: 1980 AIR 1785 1980 SCR (3)1095 1980 SCC (3) 614ACT: Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, Sections 2(23) 7, 116 (g) and 118-Scope of.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1513 of 1970.Appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and decree dated 25th August, 1965 passed by the Allahabad High Court in first Appeal No. 27 of 1951.G. N. Dikshit and S. Markandeya for the Appellant.Yogeshwar Prasad, Mr. & Mrs. S. K. Bagga & Mrs. Rani Chhabra for Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKAILASAM, J.-This appeal is preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 18-5-1970 in Supreme Court Appeal No. 105 of 1966 against it...
See the full content of this document