MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SAMANA Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolition, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent alleged in the plaint that he was running a Halwai shop since 960 at Samana. The land where the shop is situated did not belong to the Municipal Committee. However, the Municipal Committee used to recover rent as 'Teh Bazari' from the plaintiff. Sometime back, Forest Department instituted certain proceedings against the plaintiff, wherein it was established that the land whereupon the plaintiff had constructed a shop was part of the road belonging to the Public Works Department. The Municipal Committee issued notice No. 981 dated 21st July, 1969, requiring the plaintiff to stop the construction and demolish the existing construction. The notice was challenged by the plaintiff to be illegal, without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers of the Committee and was alleged to be based on wrong facts. The suit was contested by the Municipal Committee, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was a licensee of 12 feet x 16 feet open space under the Municipal Committee and, therefore, the plaintiff was estopped from denying the right and title of the Municipal Committee, under whose license the plaintiff was operating the trade, of which he was paying 'Teh Bazari' charges. It was alleged that the street vests in the Committee and, therefore, the site in dispute also vests in the Committee. The notice issued by the Municipal Committee was held to be legal, within jurisdiction and on authority of the Committee. On these pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if it be assumed that the site in dispute does not vest in the Municipal Committee, even then on the admitted case of the plaintiff himself the Committee was competent to issue the notice for demolition of the construction illegally made by the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, admittedly the Municipal Committee used to recover rent as 'Teh Bazari' from the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the Committee was competent to issue the impugned notice.