M/S. GOBIND PERSHAD JAGDISH PERSHAD versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 14-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed After

Judgment (excerpt)

-
M/S. GOBIND PERSHAD JAGDISH PERSHAD 
A 
v. 
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE 
JULY 14, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH, V. RAMASWAMI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-Section 3(13)(a) and 17(4)-''Street'L 
Municipal Committee declaring verandahs in front of shops as 'public 
streets'-Validity of 
Words & Phrases-"Streets" and ''Public Streets''-c-Meaning in the con-
text of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Sections 3(13)(a) and 17(4). 
c 
The appellant-plaintiff omied a shop premises with a verandah in 
front adjoining the verandahs of other shops in row. This made a con-
tinuous passage for the convenience of customers, and was used for D 
passing and repassing by tbe members of the public. The Respondent• 
Committee by its resolntions decided, in the public interest and public 
safety, to declare all the. Verandahs in front of the shops in that area as 
'pnblic streets' under s.17(4) of the Punjab Municipal Act. 
The appellant challenged the action of the Respondent-Committee E 
by way of a civil suit. Since the. suit was dismissed, he preferred an appeal 
before the Senior Subordinate Judge, but was not snccessful. His second 
appeal was dismissed by a Single Judge of High Court and the Letters 
Patent appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court also came to 
be dismissed, against which the appellant preferred the present appeal. F 
The appellant contended that the Verandah, being his private property, 
could not be declared a 'public streets' and in any case he could not be 
deprived of his property witho11t payment of compensation. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The verandah in dispute is a "street". It has been declared 
as a 'public street" for the better enjoyment of the public-right in the said 
street. When a 'street" is declared as 'public street' the omier of the property 
comprising the said "street'1, has no right to claim compensation. [244-A] 
G 
1.2. There is no ground to differ with the concurrent findings of the H 
237 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A courts below and take a view that the appellant has dedicated the Veran· 
dah in dispute to the public use. It is being used for passing and repassing 
by the public at large and as such is a "street" in terms of section 3(13)(a) 
of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The appellant has, thus, surrendered 
his rights in the property for the benefit of the public. The user of the 
B property is and always shall be with the public. Any space, passage, 
verandah, alley, road or footway dedicated to public by the owner for 
passing and repassing, partakes the character of a "street" and no longer 
remains under the control of the owner. The owner has no right at all times 
to prevent the pnblic from using the same. When the owner of the property 
has, by his own volition permitted his property to he converted into a 
C "street", then he has no right to claim any compensation when the same 
property is made a "public street" under section 17(4) of the Act. The 
"streets" are meant for public use. It is necessary that "streets" which are 
being used by the public are frequently repaired and are also saved from 
public abuse. It is common knowledge that in the absence of any regulatory 
D control, the hawkers and squatters are likely to occu1iy the "streets" thereby 
creating nuisance for the public. In a situation like this it is necessary for 
the Committee to step in and exercise its powers under section 17 ( 4) of the 
Act. The Committee exercises regulatory control and is responsible for the 
repair and upkeep of the "public streets". (243-E-H; 244-A) 
E 
1.3. No interference is called for in respect of the concurrent finding 
of fact that notices prescribed nnder section 17(4) of the Act were pnt up 
in the verandahs. (244-B] 
Halsbury's laws of England, 3rd Edition, Vol. 19 p.49, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4135 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3.1982 of the Delhi High 
Court in L.P.A. No. 4 of 1976. 
G 
H.K. Puri for the Appellant. 
R.K. Maheshwari and Vineet Maheswari for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The short question for consideration is whether 
GOBIND PERSHAD JAGDISH PERSHAD v. N.D.M.C. (KULDIP SINGH, J.J 239 
the New Delhi Municipal Committee (the Committee) was justified in A 
declaring the verandah in front of the shop, owned by the appellant, in the 
Connaught Circus, New Delhi, as "public street" Qn

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.