SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 572

K.RAMASWAMY, KULDIP SINGH, V.RAMASWAMI
Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad – Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Committee – Respondent


Advocates:
H.K.PURI, R.K.MAHESHWARI, VINIT MAHESHVARI

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The verandah in front of the shop was found to be a "street" under the Act due to public passage and long user by the public (!) (!) - Long uninterrupted user by the public can give rise to a presumption of dedication to public use, implying the owner surrendered control (!) (!) - Once a space is dedicated as a street and declared a public street under Section 171(4), the owner has no right to claim compensation (!) - The Committee has regulatory responsibility for repair and upkeep of declared public streets and may declare spaces as public streets under the procedure in the Act (!) (!) - Notices under Section 171(4) and procedural compliance were examined; the courts found the spaces were effectively treated as streets (!) - The judgment affirmatively holds that streets declared as public streets are meant for public use and regulated accordingly to prevent nuisance (!)

How to determine whether a verandah constitutes a public street under Section 171(4) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911?

What is the effect of dedicating property to public use on the owner's rights to claim compensation when it is declared a public street?

What is the role of public use and long-standing passage in establishing dedication of a space as a street under the Act?


JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:— The short question for consideration is whether the New Delhi Municipal Committee (the Committee) was justified in declaring the verandah in front of the shop, owned by the appellant, in the Connaught Circus, New Delhi as "public street" under Section 171(4) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (the Act). The trial court answered the question in the affirmative and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant plaintiff. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Senior Subordinate Judge on February 13, 1967. The second appeal was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court. Finally, the letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on March 12, 1982 (reported in AIR 1982 Delhi 319). This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.

2. The appellant-plaintiff obtained a perpetual lease, dated February 20, 1940, from the Governor - General in Council, in respect of plot No. 2, in block H, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The appellant constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The building has a verandah in























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top