Skip to content


Gamini Rangayya Vs. Rajahmundry Municipal Council Represented by the Chairman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1928)54MLJ581
AppellantGamini Rangayya
RespondentRajahmundry Municipal Council Represented by the Chairman
Excerpt:
- - therefore only two points are dealt within that section :(1) removal of lawful projections and (2) removal of unlawful projections, and no distinction is drawn between projections which became lawful before the commencement of the act and projections which became lawful after its commencement-.the subordinate judge was therefore right in holding that the council were entitled to remove the plaintiff's encroachment and that therefore his suit for injunction must fail......of the act. there is nothing in section 182 to suppose that any distinction is drawn between a title perfected before the coming into force of the act and a title perfected after its coming into force. clause (1) states in very general terms that any projection, encroachment or obstruction may be removed or altered. if the legislature had intended to except any class of encroachments from this rule, one would naturally expect a special clause to that effect. instead of inserting such a clause, the legislature has enacted clause (2) which says that when the projection, etc., has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give a prescriptive title, then it shall be liable to removal, but the council shall pay reasonable compensation. therefore only two points are.....
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. The contention raised by the appellant is that under Section 182 of the District Municipalities Act V of 1920 a municipal council is not empowered to remove an encroachment, the title to which became 'perfected before the commencement of the Act. There is nothing in Section 182 to suppose that any distinction is drawn between a title perfected before the coming into force of the Act and a title perfected after its coming into force. Clause (1) states in very general terms that any projection, encroachment or obstruction may be removed or altered. If the legislature had intended to except any class of encroachments from this rule, one would naturally expect a special clause to that effect. Instead of inserting such a clause, the legislature has enacted Clause (2) which says that when the projection, etc., has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give a prescriptive title, then it shall be liable to removal, but the council shall pay reasonable compensation. Therefore only two points are dealt within that section : (1) removal of lawful projections and (2) removal of unlawful projections, and no distinction is drawn between projections which became lawful before the commencement of the Act and projections which became lawful after its commencement-. The Subordinate Judge was therefore right in holding that the council were entitled to remove the plaintiff's encroachment and that therefore his suit for injunction must fail. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //