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

1996 Supreme(MP) 168

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. S. DOABIA
GAJANAN MOTAL COMPLEX - Appellant
Versus
GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondents
W. P. 1027 Of 1991
Decided On : 02/07/1996

Advocates Appeared:
N.K.MODI, RAMJEE SHARMA

The ownership of streets and footpaths vested in a municipality is a special property interest created for public purposes, and does not divest the owner of their ownership rights.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - Gwalior Development Authority - Allotment of Plot - Ownership of Footpaths - Interpretation of Municipal Corporation Act - Vesting of Streets - Public User - Private Ownership.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, allotted a plot by the Gwalior Development Authority, challenged the inclusion of a portion of the plot designated as a footpath in the sale price, arguing that he should not be liable to pay for land he would not own. The Authority maintained that ownership of the footpath would vest in the petitioner, but its use would be restricted to pedestrian access.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner would remain the owner of the entire plot, including the footpath area, but that he would be required to use the footpath for its intended purpose. The court reasoned that the vesting of streets in a municipality does not divest the owner of their ownership rights, but rather creates a special property interest for public purposes.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay for the portion of the plot designated as a footpath? 2. Whether the ownership of the footpath vests in the petitioner or the Gwalior Development Authority?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which defines a "street" as including any land used as a footpath, regardless of whether it is privately owned. 2. The court relied on judicial precedents from both England and India, which established that the vesting of streets in a municipality does not transfer ownership of the land to the municipality, but rather creates a special property interest for public purposes.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was liable to pay for the entire plot, including the footpath area, and that he would be required to use the footpath for its intended purpose.

T. S. DOABIA, J.

( 1 ) IT is high time that owners of commercial premises should make provision for providing space for parking, toilet facilities, approach roads and other basic ammenities to the public who come to their premises. The State is burdened as it is finding it difficult to make provisions for everything which a citizen requires. This can be achieved either by Legislative mandate or by terms of contract under which transfer of rights is made. One such step taken in the right direction by Gwalior Development Authorities respondent No. 1, is being impugned in the present writ petition. The matter is purely contractual. It would have been appropriate for the petitioner to pursu the same in the civil court. As a matter of fact, some litigation is pending in Civil Court. However, as the present petition is pending in this Court for almost four years, it would be apt to deal with the same.

( 2 ) A plot No. 38, was allotted to the petitioner. This allotment was made by the respondent No 1. The plot is situated in the city centre at Gwalior. Annexure P/1 is a communication in this regard. This is dated 29th of October, 1988. The area of the plot is said to be 985. 18 sq. metres. The petitioner was to pay the price of this land at the rate of Rs. 600/- per sq. metre. The dispute which has been raised by the petitioner is that the actual area of the plot is less than what has been stipulated in Annexure P/1. He submits that either the same area in Annexure P/1 be allotted or there should be a corresponding decrease in the price. The petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs. 5,91,108/ -. He has paid only Rs. 55,000/-

( 3 ) THE stand taken by the Gwalior Development Authority be noticed

( 4 ) ACCORDING to it, the area which has been allotted to the petitioner is as per Annexure P/1. It has been pointed out that' some part of the area is to be used for the purposes of foot-paths. This would provide access to the complex to be raised by the petitioner. It is this area which is covered by the foot-path, which is the bone of contention. According to the petitioner, he is not supposed to pay the price of the land which is covered by the foot-paths. According to him, the ownership of this is not going to be with it and, therefore, it cannot be made liable to pay the price thereof. 4a. I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner is totally misconceived. The law does contemplate ownership of an individual entity in footpaths and streets even though these are used by the public at large. The categorical stand taken by the respondents is that the ownership of the area shown as foot-path would vest in the petitioner. It has only to be used for a particular purpose. The area in question would be utilised as a foot-path. General public would have access to the complex to be constructed by the petitioner. There is abundant judicial precedence for the preposition that a property may vest in one person but its user be prescribed. The various statutes dealing with municipal administration defined the term "street" and "public street". The site is located in Gwalior as such the definition given in the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 be noticed in this behalf. Street is defined in S. 5 (55) of the Act. This section reads as under:- (55) "street" means any road, foot way square, court, alley or passage, accessible, whether permanently or temporarily to the public, whether a throughfare or not; and shall include any vacant space, notwithstanding that it may be private property and partly or wholly obstructed by any gate, post, chain or other barrier, if houses, shops or other buildings about thereon, and if it is used by any person as means of access to or from any public or thoroughfare, whether such persons be occupiers of such buildings or not;but shall not include any part of such space which the occupier of any such building has a right at all other persons from using as " aforesaid; and shall include but the drains on either side and




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
whatsapp-icon Back to top