RAVI S. DHAVAN AND V. P. GOEL, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS petition was brought fifteen years ago by Smt. Lalta Devl and Heera Lal, in effect, resisting the planning of the respondents in widening the Grand Trank Road. The petitioner No. 1 has died, her heirs have been substituted.

( 2 ) ON facts, there is no issue. The petitioners have shops on the side of the Grand Trank Road. Several persons like the petitioners and along side them saw their shops demolished to give way to a public plan to clear the Grand Trank Road for highway traffic. The petitioners tied up the respondents in knots in litigations. First they filed a case before the Munsif, being the Additional munslf, Varanasi, in Suit No. 2 of 1976. Smt. Munsera Devi and another v. Nagar Palika. Mugalsarai, They did not make the relevant parties, parties to the suit. The contention of the petitioners was that they be not evicted except in accordance with law. The learned Munsif gave a declaration, in effect, that the petitioners ought not to be evicted except in accordance with law. Notwithstanding, the decision of the trial court, upon the declaration which the petitioners received, proceedings under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1972, were initiated by the Nagar Palika. Mugalsarai. on the ground that the petitioners were on the road-shops of the Grand Trank Road, which was part and parcel of this National highway. It was contended by the Nagar Palika, Mugalsarai that the petitioners were in possession of a tin shade on payment of dally tehbazari. The cause of action arose, it was contended before the Prescribed Authority, when the petitioner on 21 May, 1976, the evening, made unauthorised constructions. The petitioners were changing the lesser of the land which had been given to them solely for the purpose of tehbazari. The contention of the petitioners was that the land had been given to them on release. This argument was replied in the petition before the prescribed Authority that the lease was in favour of the Town Area Committee, Mugalsarai (later to become Nagar Palika) and any lease which had been given to the Town Area Committee came to an end in 1950. This lease was extended by the State of U. P. upto 1957 and, thereafter. It was never renewed. This aspect does not help the petitioners, in the petition before the Prescribed authority, the Nagar Palika, Mugalsarai, had submitted that the lease which was executed by the state in favour of Town Area Committee, on a definite clause that the Town Area Committee would give vacant possession to the Public Works Department, National Highway after the expiry of the period of lease. Truly, the petitioners have no right where they are, after expiry of the lease which had been granted to the Town Area Committee. If the" petitioners claim that they have a lease, their rights, at best, cannot be beyond a sub-lessee. When the lessee did not have any rights left, there is no question of sub-lessee continuing. The petitioners, looked at any way. are carrying on business in a shop under an arrangement of tehbazari and not a lease.

( 3 ) WHEN the prescribed authority proceeded with the matter, the petitioners challenged his authority on the ground that the prescribed authority had no jurisdiction.

( 4 ) MATTERS of planning of highways, public roads cannot be embroiled in litigations so that they frustrate the very purpose for which a highway is planned. If every encroacher were to do this, the highways of the nation will get choked and it will be impossible to facilitate the fast moving traffic. The highways will need to be protected with stricter standards. The petitioners have no right on a public road in any case. The Supreme Court had interpreted this situation long ago which cases have not been noticed by the trial court. Thus, whatever be the worth of the decision of the trial court, it will have to be seen in the perspective of settled decisions of the Supreme court. This Court is not reiterating t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document