RANJIT SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 25th January, 1967, Ranjit Singh filed a suit against Municipal Committee, Samrala and Kashmira Singh for a declaration to the effect that the vacant side ABCD shown in red colour in the plan attached with the plaint, was exclusively owned and possessed by the Plaintiff and was neither a public street nor a private street and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering in the use of the disputed site by the Plaintiff in any manner. The suit was contested by the Defendants who pleaded that the site in dispute was being used as a street for the last fifty years and was rightly declared as a public street. On the contest of the parties, the following issue were framed:

(2.) In order to decide the point involved, it will be necessary to refer to the plan Exhibit P. 6 showing the site marked ABCD depicted in red colour which was declared as a public street. The opening of this street towards the main bazar depicted by letters AB is 6' - -3" and as one proceeds from that place inside the street, the street gets narrower and the width comes down to 4' - -9" and thereafter it starts increasing towards the other end to 5' - -6" as shown by letters CD. The opening at point CD is on the Samrala -Khanna road. About this very street a litigation started at the instance of the Appellant on 7th May, 1947, against Sainsi and Chuhra sons of Attra in which the Appellant claimed to be the exclusive owner of the site and wanted to restrain the Defendants from using the same as a path and disputed that it was joint property of the parties. The site in dispute is situated between the properties of the Plaintiff and the Defendants of that suit. Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, by judgment and decree dated 10th February, 1950 (copy Exhibit P. 8) came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff failed to prove that he was the sole owner of the disputed site with the result that the suit was dismissed. The Plaintiff took up the matter in appeal and the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, allowed the same and granted a decree for declaration to the effect that the Plaintiff was exclusive owner of 10 Biswansis out of the disputed area as detailed in Exhibit P. 4 and only 2 Biswansis as detailed in that document, belonged to the Defendants and an injunction was granted to the Plaintiff against the Defendants prohibiting them from opening any door or drain on the land belonging to the Plaintiff, vide judgment; and decree dated 6th February, 1952 (copies Exhibits P. 9 and P. 10). The Defendants filed RSA. No. 286 of 1952 in this Court. This Court maintained the ownership of the Plaintiff with regard to 10 Biswansis and of the Defendants with regard to the remaining 2 Biswansis, as held by the learned District Judge and therefore, dismissed the appeal of the Defendants by judgment dated 7th April, 1955 (copy Exhibit P. 11). This clearly shows that the site in dispute, which is between the two houses of the parties, belonged exclusively to Ranjit Singh Appellant before me whereas it was alleged to be joint of the parties according to the defence in the previous litigation but the finding was recorded that major portion of it belonged to Ranjit Singh Plaintiff and only a small portion belonged to those Defendants. Therefore, it is clear that till 1935 when the case was decided by this Court, it was nobody's case that the lane in dispute was a street or a public street and was being used by all and sundry. On the other hand, what is clear is that Ranjit Singh Plaintiff disputed the use of the lane even by his immediate neighbours in which he succeeded upto this Court. The facts on the record reveal that after the previous Defendants failed upto this Court, Chuhar Singh along with several other persons made an application dated 18th December, 1961, to the Municipal Committee, Samrala, complaining that in the lane between the shops of Ranjit Singh Plaintiff and Chuhar Singh, on which their houses are situate, the water of the two houses is drained out and since there is no pucca drain to take the water out of the lane, it stagnates there and during summer mosquitoes breed and it gives foul smell. They, therefore, requested that a pucca drain be constructed in the lane. The original application is Exhibit D. 1. On that complaint a report was made that in order to carry out the pucca construction the lane will have to be declared a public street and for that matter notice under Sec. 171 of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called the Act) be issued. This report is Exhibit D. 2. Thereafter, an order was issued under Sec. 171(4) of the Act proposing to declare the street as a public street and the final order declaring it to be a public street was passed on 1st October, 1962, a copy of which has been placed on record as Exhibit D. 8 and Exhibit D. 6 is a court of the publication made after declaring the lane to be a public street. Thereafter, one plan was submitted by Kashmira Singh son of Sainsi proposing to raise new construction on his site abutting on the disputed lane which was declared to be a public street, showing several openings in that street in the proposed plan and when the plan was sanctioned but before he could raise any construction, Ranjit Singh Plaintiff came to know about it and filed the present suit, both against the Municipal Committee and Kashmira Singh, in which he challenged the declaration of the site belonging to him to be a public street.

(3.) The definition of "street" and "public street" as given in Ss. 3(3)(a) and (b) of the Act, are as under: