Skip to content


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

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in109Ind.Cas.578
AppellantGamini Rangayya
RespondentRajahmundry Municipal Council, Represented by the Chairman
Excerpt:
madras district municipalities act (v of 1920), section 182 - encroachments in existence beyond prescriptive period--municipal council, power of, to remove. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read..........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 end 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 bad 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 still be liable to removal, but the council shall pay reasonable compensation. therefore only two points.....
Judgment:

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 end 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 bad 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 still be liable to removal, but the Council shall pay reasonable compensation. Therefore only two points are dealt with in 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 //