The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorized constructions on public or private land without permission do not confer any legal right, and interim measures passed by the appellant do not grant rights or make appeals infructuous.

M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. As the issue involved in all these matters is one and the same, they have been taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.A.No.1186 of 1999.

2. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3150 of 1990 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the appellant and respondent No.2 to assign the land individually occupied by its members by running their respective shops. The learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition by order dated 7.9.1998 on the ground that the appellant, having indulged in the practice of receiving fees and the members of respondent No.1 were making representations from 1985 onwards they should be assigned the respective lands occupied by them. Consequently, the appellant and respondent No.2 were given liberty to fix the rent or fees for the respective shops.

3. Being aggrieved over the order aforesaid, Writ Appeal No.1186 of 1999 has been filed. Pending the Writ Appeal, notices have been issued by the appellant to the members of respondent No.1 Association to remove the respective shops put up by them in the land belonging to it on the road, so as to carry out the work of laying sewerage channel. Challenging the said order, W.P.No.1947 of 2010 has been filed, inter alia, alleging that the order aforesaid is contumacious, Contempt Petition No.986 of 2010 has been filed. It is to be noted that the Writ Appeal No.1186 of 1999 was dismissed by the Order dated 3.8.2000, as the appellant has failed to comply with the direction issued towards filing of batta. Incidentally, the same was restored by a subsequent order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that constructions have been put up by the members of respondent No.1 unauthorisedly over the road. The documents produced would show that the land in question is a road and unauthorised constructions have been put up without due permission. It has also led to the flooding of important places as there is an obstruction to the free flow of water during heavy rains. The condition of the unauthorised constructions put up is also precarious. The members of respondent No.1 do not have a legal right to encroach and do vending on a road.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that it is not right to state that the encroachments have been made on a road. It is only a Government poramboke land. Respondent No.2 has also sent a communication stating that it is a private property. The members of respondent No.1 are doing the business for number of years. The learned single Judge has passed the order by taking into consideration of the relevant materials. Thus, no interference is required. Consequently, it is submitted that the Writ Petition No.1947 of 2010 will have to be allowed. Yet another submission has been made that the subsequent conduct of the appellant through the resolution dated 26.4.2002 would make the appeal infructuous.

6. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the members of respondent No.1 Association do not have a vested right. Merely because certain persons were permitted to exhibit sale articles in the platform during sandhai days Sunday and Monday during specific time period, a vested right cannot be created. Similarly, the collection of fees, if any, and the service connections given also would not give any right to the members of respondent No.1. Admittedly, no permission was given earlier by the appellant. After going through the relevant records, we are of the view that the members of respondent No.1 Association have put up unauthorised constructions on the road side. Even assuming that the land is private, the very writ petitions would not be maintainable. It is also not the case of respondent No.1, who incidentally claims right against the appellant and respondent No.2 relying on the fees collected.

7. The averment made in the counter affidavit of the appellant that the deponen