Public street cannot be held as private property of Municipality.

This is an appeal from the learned District Judge of Chengalpattu, allowing A.S. No. 134 of 1974 filed by the Kancheepuram Municipal Council, the defendant in the suit, and setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram and dismissing O.S. No. 43 of 1793 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram.

2. The appellant herein is the owner of a workshop and a petrol bunk situate in T.S. No. 1770/1 of Kancheepuram Town, and abutting on a public street comprised in T.S. No. 1784 and T.S. No. 17702. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff has been conducting a workshop in the western portion of the aforesaid T.S. No. 1770/1 for more than thirty years prior to the institution of the suit. The approach to his property is through the public street, now called Bus Stand Road, and formerly known as Maduran Thottam Road. This road has been in existence as a public street from time immemorial. These facts alleged in the plaint have not been specifically denied in the written statement and are also supported by the admissions of D.W. 1, and, therefore, we may take it as established that the public street on the northern portion of T.S. No. 1785 and comprised in T.S. No. 1784 and the western part of T.S. No. 1770/2 has been used by the public as a public street and by the plaintiff as the owner of the adjacent property in exercise of his right as an owner of the private property for more than thirty years.

3. At the instance of the defendant-Municipality, T.S. No. 1785 measuring 8853 sq. feet in Ward No. 2 of Kancheepuram Town adjoining T.S. No. 1784 and the western portion of T.S. No. 1770/2, situate south of T.S. No. 1784 and west and south of T.S. No. 1770/2 was acquired by the Government in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of widening the road leading to the bus stand and was transferred to the defendant-Municipality with a direction that the land acquired should be classified as Municipal Bus Stand Road. Since then, this part which has been added to the original public street has been in use as a public street and the plaintiff as well as the other members of the public have been using this public street. In addition to this right to use this public street as a member of the public, the plaintiff claims a right to have access to the property in T.S. No. 1770/1 by virtue of the fact that his property is abutting on the road.

4. The plaintiff has leased out the property described as item 2 in the plaint which forms part of T.S. No. 1770/1 and which is situate in the south east of T.S. No. 1770[1 to one Sanjeevi Naidu for running a petrol bunk. Sanjeevi Naidu, who has been appointed as a distributor of a petroleum company, has installed a petrol bunk in the aforesaid portion of T.S. No. 1770/1. Thereupon, the defendant insisted that unless fee was paid for the user of the street by the lessee as well as by the plaintiff, no licence would be issued to the lessee. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the plaint that:

“The plaintiff and the lessee to avoid a pitched battle with a head-strong Commissioner agreed to pay under pressure and compulsion a licence fee of Rs. 100 each”.

The allegation that the plaintiff and his lessee agreed under pressure and compulsion to pay the licence fee and the further allegation that the Commissioner who was in office at that time was “head-strong” are not denied in the written statement and may, therefore be taken to have been admitted by the defendant. Subsequently, the fee was raised to Rs. 300 and then to Rs. 600. It is seen from the evidence of D.W. 1 that the only motive which prompted the Municipality and its employees to increase the licence fee payable by the plaintiff and his lessee from time to time was the desire to get, or rather extract, as much as possible from them. When the plaintiff refused to pay the enhanced fee of Rs. 600 per annum, the defendant-Municipal Council passed a resolution to put up a wall or a building in i