LALLAI RAM Vs. MUNICIPALITY ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the declaration made by the Municipal Board, Allahabad, by the notification dated 2nd November 1955 published in the local newspapers on 4th November 1955, and that the order of the Administrator dated 1st October 1955 be quashed.

(2.) Briefly the facts necessray for the disposal of the present petition are that there is premies known as Municipal No. 79, Nakhaskoaa Allahabad which is popularly known as Mandi Ali Sajiad Ganj alias Badh ki Mandi situate in Mohalla Nakhaskona. The petitioners claim to be the owner of a major portion of this Mandi. On the 4th July 1955, a notification was issued by the Municipal Board, Allahabad that the Board intended to declare the portion of this Mandi over which the public had a right to pass and which was a street within the meaning of the Municipalities Act, a public street objections were invited and within two months of the date of the notification the petitioners contend that certain objections were filed by them in which besides alleging the fact that the street was properly maintained the petitioners further contended that it was not a street within the meaning of Sub-section 23 of section 2 of the Municipalities Act. According to the petitioners another objection was also filed by the owners to the extent of annas four of this Ahata. The Administrator by his order dated 1st October 1955 rejected the objection and directed further proceedings for the declaration of this street as public street to be taken. In pursuance of the administrator's decision another notification of the 2nd November 1955 was issued.

(3.) The contentions raised by the petitioners are three-fold. It is firstly contended by him that his objection was not considered as required under the provisions of section 221 of the Municipalities Act. The next contention raised by the petitioners is that on the admitted facts it is not a street as defined- under section 2 (23) of the Municipalities Act, and lastly, it was contended that the Board did not afford any opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their objections and to be heard personally before the declaration was made that it was a public street and thus the fundamental rights of the petitioners have been infringed.