STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus ATA MOHD.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 08-05-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
-"'-
'\ 
t 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
ATAMOHD. 
May 8, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA 'FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.) 
1095 
flttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, Sections 2(23) 7, 116 (g) 
a11d 118-
Scope of. 
Tho respondent applied in the year 1939, to the Municipal Board, Gorakh-
pur for granting to him of a lease of plot No. 227 measuring 45'X20' adjoin-
ing Patri along with the road running from Golgarh to Alinagar in Gorakhpur. 
The Board declined to grant him the lease. On a second application 
dat~ 
10-10-1945, the Municipal Board passed a resolution on 24-11-1945 granting 
the lease to the respondent. On 8-3-1S46 the District Magistrate accorded his 
approval of the resolution of the Mnnicipality. On 12-4-1946 the respondent 
executed a "KABULIY Al"' in favour of the Municipal Board, Gorakhpur. On 
23;4-1946 the respondent applied for permission to construct a house and sub-
mitted a plan for sanction. The plan was sanctioned by thei Municipality oiii 
8-5-1946. 
On receipt of certain representations on 10-6-1947, the District Magistrate 
directed the Chairman of the Municipal Board not to allow the construction till 
a decision was taken on the question. On 13-6-1947, the Chairman, Municipal 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Board directed the respondent not to proceed with the construction of the house, 
E 
The State Government on being satisfied that the resolution regarding the grant 
of the lease was not within the competence of the Municipality, directed 
the 
Commissioner to cancel the lease granted to the respondent, whereupon the res--
pendent was served with a notice on 13-7-1948 cancelliog the lease and calling 
upon him to remove the construction and deliver vacant possession within 15 
daya of the receipt of the notice. 
The respondent filed a suit no. 86 of 1948 
for an injnnction restraining the Municipal Board from demolishing or otherwise 
F 
interfering with the Construction made by him on the disputed land. The Civil 
Judge, GQrakhpur decreed the suit and that has become final. 
Thereafter, claiming the land as the Nazarul land belonging to the State, 
the appellant-State filed 5uit no. 109 of i949 in the Court of Civil Judge, 
Gorakhpur against the re5pondent Ata Mohd. for a mandatory injunction direct-
ing the respondent to remove his material and construction and for a decree for 
G 
possession over the land measuring 45'X20'. The Civil Judge Gorakhpur dis-
mi55ed the suit by judgment and decree dated 3-10-1950. The appellants plain· 
·tiff preferred first appeal No. 27 of 1951 to the High Court of Allahabad. The 
appeal woo heard by a Bench of two Judges but on a difference of opinion, the 
matter was referred to the third Judge. In accordance with the view of the 
majority, the appeal preferred by the appellant plaintiff was dismissed by its 
judgment dated 25th August, 1965. On a certificate granted by the High Court 
H 
under Art. 135 of the Constitution and also Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, 
the present appeal in this Court was filed by the plaintiff /appellant. 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(I 
HELD : l. The Municipalities in various States were created undel' the res· 
pective Municipalities Acts in order to facilitate the efficient administration of 
the Municipal areas and to provide lighting, watering and maintaining of publid 
streets a.nd places. The duties of the Municipal Boards are specified in S. 6 
of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Under S. 118 of the Act, the Municipal Boiird 
is e'mpowered to manage or control any property entrusted to its management 
and control. The vesting of the property, in the Municipality is under S. 116 
of the Act. S. 116· provides that subject to auy special reserv:>tion made by the 
State Government, all property of the nature specified in this section and situated 
within the Municipality shall vest in and belong to the Board, and shalli, with 
all property which may become vested in the Board, be under 
its 
direction, 
management and control. While under clause· (f) of S. 116, all lands and 
other property transferred to the Board by the Government by gift, purchase or 
otherwise for local public purposes ves! in the Municipality, under Cl. (g), the 
streets vest only qua streets and not as absolute property with the Municipality. 
In the present case the property falls within the definition of 'Streee wider 
section 2(23) of the Act. [1100 A-D, E-F, HJ 
2. Though ,the street vested in the Mnnicip

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