LALA RAM Vs. NAGAR MAHAPALIKA ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 29 -11 -1968, the Na -gar Mahapalika, Allahabad, demolished a portion of the Petitioner's house situate in Sulem Sarai within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The Petitioner is aggrieved at this action on two grounds. According to the Petitioner, the house is a very old one. His ancestors lived in it. They and after them the Petitioner had been in possession of the same ever since. Alternatively, it was claimed that the action of demolition was contrary to the provisions of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The case of the Mahapalika is that the aforesaid house was an unauthorised construction having been built upon a public street. The Mahapalika sent a notice Under Section 299(1) of the Adhiniyam, but the Petitioner refused to accept it. Consequently, the notice was pasted at the house. The notice stated that the house was an unauthorised construction. It should he removed by 28 -11 -1968, failing which it would be demolished by the Mahapalika. The Petitioner failed to comply with this notice. Consequently, the Mahapalika had to demolish it.

(2.) SECTION 299(1) authorises the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to remove unauthorised walls, fences, etc., erected before the appointed date, as an encroachment on a public street. Under Sub -section (2) of Section 299, the owner or occupier is entitled to get reasonable compensation for the damage suffered by such demolition, provided he proves that under the law of limitation he had acquired a prescriptive title or that the building was erected with the consent of the Mahapalika. The Petitioner has not stated that he made any demand for compensation. Consequently, such a relief cannot be granted in this Court. If the Petitioner has any grievance on this score, the proper course for him is to make a demand for compensation and if the demand is not complied, to file a regular suit for the recovery of the compensation. Section 299, however, says, that an unauthorised encroachments on public streets can be removed by the Nagar Mahapalika, even though they may have been made prior to the coming into force of the Adhiniyam.

(3.) IT was also urged that the notice Under Section 299(1) was not lawfully served on the Petitioner. The Respondent has stated that the notice was sent to the Petitioner, but he refused to accept it. That, in my opinion, was sufficient service. Moreover, the notice is stated to have been pasted at the house itself. The fact that the Petitioner says that he did not find any notice placed on it would not conclude the matter. There is nothing to indicate that the Respondent is not telling the truth while stating the manner of the service of the notice.