SANJAY MISHRA Vs. NAGAR PALIKA ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Encroachment on public places like sidewalks, pavements and public streets at times take novel shapes and styles. Some are upon them, others over them as if in suspended animation. The case before us is one such instance. There is no dispute that the petitioner's little shop is over a public drain and a public street. But, the petitioner contends that it is not upon the public street or the drain and that strictly he has neither encroached a public street or a drain nor violated the law. The shop is partly embedded in a wall adjoining a public street. It does not touch the ground but juts out over it.

(2.) The case relates to the town of Etawah. In this town functions a civic body known as the Municipal Board, Etawah, which carries on its functions under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In this town there is a main street. It is known as the Station Road. This road is crossed by another public street called Bazaza road. Towards south of this crossing and on the western side of the Station Road is a small shop from where the petitioner carries on his business of readymade garments and hosiery. The shop juts out partly from a wall of a College-Sanathan Dharm Intermediate College. The wall runs parallel to the road. The Municipal Board, in April, 1986, issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 34 objecting to the petitioner's shop over the public drain and on the side walk of the Station Road. The petitioner mentions in his petition that his encroachment over the road was compounded by the Municipal Board when he paid a fine of Rs. 40/- and thus the encroachment must remain. This is one of the issues raised, and will be considered by this Court in the present petition.

(3.) During the summer vacation of 1986, the petitioner moved the High Court by the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection, in effect, that unless the High Court interferes by an ad interim order his shop would be demolished in pursuance of the campaign initiated by the Municipal Board known as "Atikraman Hatao Abhiyan" (Anti Encroachment Drive). The petitioner also mentions in his petition that this encroachment drive has been launched under the Master Plan of the Municipal Board. On an apprehension that the Municipal Board would remove his shop with police aid he came rushing to this Court on the 17th June 1986 and pending admission of the writ petition received an ad interim order to the effect that the petitioner's shop would not be demolished.