Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.43 seconds)Section 116 in The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [Entire Act]
The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 3 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Municipal Board, Manglaur vs Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj on 24 November, 1964
It has exclusive right to manage and control the surface of the soil and so much of the soil below and of the space above the surface as is necessary to enable it to adequately maintain the street as a street. It has also a certain property in the soil of the street which would enable it as owner to bring a possessory action against trespassers. Subject to the rights of the Municipality and the public to pass and
repass on the highway, the owner of the soil in general remains the occupier of it and, therefore, he can maintain an action for trespass against any member of the public who acts in excess of his right. On this conclusion, the Court further held that the Municipality cannot put any structure which it intended to erect on the vacant site as it cannot be said that they were necessary for the maintenance or user of the road as a public highway. Such act was unauthorised of the municipality.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ata Mohd on 8 May, 1980
14. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the company that the public streets and other appurtenances vests in the Municipal Board only as trustee for the purpose of its management and control, but it does not carry ownership rights in the land itself. The rights which vests in the Municipal Board under Section 92 in respect of public streets and its appurtenances are only the rights to control and management of streets as streets but if any property interest existing on abutting land which abound the public street, the ownership rights continue to vest in those persons whether the State or other individual owner as the case may be. In this connection, he placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court viz. The Municipal Board, Manglaur v. Mahadeoji Maharaj reported in AIR 1965 SC 1147 and State of U.P. v. Ata Mohd., reported in AIR 1980 SC 1785. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that even otherwise Section 92 is confined to property mentioned in different clauses, only if such property is not specially reserved by the State Govt. As in the present case, the public road in question which is described as village road by the learned counsel for the appellant is maintained by the Public Works Department of State and has been specially reserved under Sub-section (2) of Section 92 by the State Govt., vide Notification referred to above. The property did not at all vests for any purpose in the Municipal Board. Mr. Mehta further contended that assuming that the land in question vest in municipality, provisions of Section 138 can be invoked only in respect of temporary use of land or the surface of land but, the provisions of Section 138 cannot be invoked for permanent use of the sub-soil with the permission of the paramount owner namely the State. Lastly, it was urged that
assuming that any licence fee is chargeable by the Municipal Board but, it can confine only for the period during which the surface of land in question remained temporarily in possession of the respondent-company for the purpose of laying down the pipeline which is under ground and is not part of the public street.
Section 7 in The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [Entire Act]
S. Sundaram Ayyar vs The Municipal Council Of Madura And The ... on 13 December, 1901
22. The Court also referred to a decision of Madras High Court in S. Sundaram Ayyar v. The Municipal Council of Madura and The Secretary of State for India in Council reported in (1902) 1LR 25 Madras 635. The Court quoted with approval the following ratio from the Madras decision :