Durga Prasad and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Durga Prasad and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 26, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/475143

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/475143
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Ravi S. Dhavan and ;V.P. Goel, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 26, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 8161 of 1999
Subject: Constitution;Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution - demolition of shops on road - no one has right to occupy public road - footpath or pavement are public properties - their use for private purposes frustrate the object for which they are made - it is source of nuisance to public - held, demolition of road side shop justified and no case for interferen...

Key legal issue: Constitution;Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durga Prasad and Others

Advocate Ashfaq Ahmad

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Cases Referred: (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Reported In: 1999(2)AWC1452

Excerpt

constitution - demolition of shops on road - no one has right to occupy public road - footpath or pavement are public properties - their use for private purposes frustrate the object for which they are made - it is source of nuisance to public - held, demolition of road side shop justified and no case for interference by high court. - .....has a cycle spare parts shop. the petitionerno. 5, also, has a general merchant shop. the petitioner no. 6 is, also, running a cycle spare parts shop. the petitioner no. 7, also, has a spare parts shop for motor cycles and scooters. the petitioner no. 8 is running a spare parts shop for tractors.2. the law is very clear that no one has a right to occupy a public road. the road is meant for traffic and for no other purpose. no person has any right to any particular spot on a roadside of a public road or street. (bombay hawkers' union v. bombay municipal corporation, air 1985 sc 1206). in fact, the law has been settled to such an extent that in a very old case, the supreme court has held that nothing can come on the roadside, neither facilities as a 'piau' nor a library nor even a statue of mahatma gandhi (manglaur municipality v. mahadeoji, air 1965 sc 1147). in this context, the supreme court has held that footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. they are not laid for private use and indeed their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets. the supreme court has further held that the existence of dwellings on the pavements is unquestionably a source of nuisance to the public, at least for the reason that they are denied the use of pavements for passing and repassing (olga tellis v. bombay municipal corporation, air 1986 sc 180).3. in the circumstances, the petitioners have not made out any prima facie case for interference by the high court.4. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.

1. The eight petitioners, M/s. Durga Prasad. Noor Mohammad, Wahid Ali, Guddu, Iqbal, Risalat, Khiyali and Yusuf, have filed the present petition seeking reliefs that the respondents be restrained from evicting them on the demolition drive to clear the Bhojipura Road--Pilibhit--Bareilly Road. Town Rithora, district Bareilly. The contention of the petitioners is that they remain on the roadside by necessity. The petitioner No. 1 runs a shop to repair tyre punctures of heavy vehicles, motor cars and trucks. The petitioner No. 2 has been running a scrap dealer's shop, a kabari. The petitioner No. 3 has a general merchandise shop. The petitioner No. 4 has a cycle spare parts shop. The petitionerNo. 5, also, has a general merchant shop. The petitioner No. 6 is, also, running a cycle spare parts shop. The petitioner No. 7, also, has a spare parts shop for motor cycles and scooters. The petitioner No. 8 is running a spare parts shop for tractors.

2. The law is very clear that no one has a right to occupy a public road. The road is meant for traffic and for no other purpose. No person has any right to any particular spot on a roadside of a public road or street. (Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1985 SC 1206). In fact, the law has been settled to such an extent that in a very old case, the Supreme Court has held that nothing can come on the roadside, neither facilities as a 'piau' nor a library nor even a statue of Mahatma Gandhi (Manglaur Municipality v. Mahadeoji, AIR 1965 SC 1147). In this context, the Supreme Court has held that footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets. The Supreme Court has further held that the existence of dwellings on the pavements is unquestionably a source of nuisance to the public, at least for the reason that they are denied the use of pavements for passing and repassing (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180).

3. In the circumstances, the petitioners have not made out any prima facie case for interference by the High Court.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Durga Prasad and Others vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Constitution;Property Same Judge Ravi S. Dhavan and ;V.P. Goel, JJ.

Constitution;Property Municipal corporation prima facie case supreme court Public street Prima facie