LAWS(MAD)-1991-10-94

VEERIAH ASARI ALIAS VEERACHARI Vs. SALEM MUNICIPALITY

Decided On October 31, 1991
VEERIAH ASARI ALIAS VEERACHARI Appellant
V/S
SALEM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SALEM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE suit is one for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent Municipality from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the plaint itself, it is categorically stated in paragraph 3 that the site in this suit property was classified as sandhu poramboke ?and the plaintiff had originally put up a thatched house thereon at his own cost in 1987. In the plaint, there is no reference whatever to any permission h aving been granted by the Municipality or any lease granted by it. THE plaint proceeds on the only footing that the plaintiff is in possession from 1957, having constructed a superstructure, and was entitled to continue on the property. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff has perfected his right over the suit property.

(2.) IN the written statement, the first defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff and also raised an objection on the ground of non-joinder of the Government as a party as the land is a poramboke. Thereafter, the Government was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit.

(3.) EVEN assuming that there was a lease in favour of the plaintiff, it was not valid in law. The Municipality is certainly not entitled to lease out a street poramboke land to any party when the land is intended only to be used for the purpose of street. The Municipality has no power to convert the user and allow any party to use it for any other purpose. The position of law has been clearly set out in Zahara Bi v. Sheik Dawood AIR 1966 1 Mad 550. The law has been very clearly elucidated by the learned Judge and it is pointed out that a street has to be used only as a street and the Municipality cannot put it to a different user. It is also pointed out that any member of the public can compel the Municipality to use it as a street. In this case admittedly it is a street and it is not open to the Municipality to lease out the same to the plaintiff for having his superstructure.