1980 (5) TMI 109 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the disputed land (plot No. 227).
2. Authority of the Municipal Board to lease the land.
3. Validity of the lease granted by the Municipal Board.
4. Right of the State to evict the respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Disputed Land:
The primary issue was whether the land in question, plot No. 227, belonged to the State of Uttar Pradesh or the Municipal Board of Gorakhpur. The State claimed that the land was Nazrul land and thus government property. The respondent contended that the land was part of the Patri of the public road and thus vested in the Municipal Board.

The Trial Court found that the land was a "street" and belonged to the Municipal Board. The High Court agreed, holding that the land vested in the Municipality under Section 116(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Act. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that while the land was vested in the Municipality for the purpose of managing it as a street, the State retained ownership of the soil. The Municipality had control over the surface and necessary subsoil for maintaining the street but did not own the land outright.

2. Authority of the Municipal Board to Lease the Land:
The State argued that the Municipal Board had no authority to lease the land as it was government property. The respondent countered that the Municipal Board had the practice of obtaining Kabuliyats from lessees instead of formal leases and that the lease was approved by the District Magistrate.

The Supreme Court noted that the Municipal Board's authority to manage and control streets did not extend to leasing the land for purposes other than street maintenance. The Municipal Board could not lease the land as an absolute owner since the land was vested in it only qua street.

3. Validity of the Lease Granted by the Municipal Board:
The respondent had executed a Kabuliyat in favor of the Municipal Board and constructed a house based on the sanctioned plan. The State contended that the lease was invalid as the Municipal Board was not the owner.

The Supreme Court held that the lease was invalid because the Municipal Board did not have the authority to lease the land for purposes other than maintaining it as a street. The lease granted by the Municipal Board was beyond its scope of authority, making it invalid.

4. Right of the State to Evict the Respondent:
The State sought to evict the respondent, arguing that it retained ownership of the land and that the Municipal Board had acted beyond its authority.

The Supreme Court concluded that the State, as the owner of the land, had the right to evict the respondent. The Court emphasized that the Municipality's rights were limited to managing the street and did not include leasing the land for other purposes. The State's ownership allowed it to maintain an action for eviction against anyone in illegal possession.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, holding that the State retained ownership of the land and was entitled to evict the respondent. The lease granted by the Municipal Board was invalid as it exceeded the Board's authority. The appeal was allowed with costs, and a decree was issued in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for.