Ravi Swaroop Dhavan and S.K. Keshote, JJ. - (1.) RAJ Mani S/o. Amar Nath, R/o Tehsil Sirsa, District Allahabad, has filed the present petition against the State of U.P. and the Town Area, Sirsa, Allahabad praying that the notice dated 26 August 1994 of the Town Area, Sirsa, be quashed. By this notice, the petitioner has been required to remove his occupation over a drain at the road side by making a Chabutara (Platform) as an extension of his kiosk (Gomti). The contention of the petitioner is that the site which he occupies had been granted on a licence, in 1943 to one Sheo Bodh. The petitioner says that he is the legal representative and heir of the aforesaid Sheo Bodh, by a will. Thus, the petitioner contends that he occupies the side -walk of the road by a licence to his predecessor -in -interest and he continued with this right and pays Teh Bazari.
(2.) ONE aspect may be made clear at the outset. A licence of the nature which the petitioner has, is personal to the person who had received the indulgence and such permission is not subject to gifts and transfers by testamentary dispositions. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that after the death of Sheo Bodh, the petitioner rightly or wrongly, was permitted by a licence to occupy the road side and has paid the licence fee as Teh Bazari upto 1994 -95. Today, the law on the concept of a public road has been made absolutely clear by the Supreme Court. There is now neither any doubt nor issue that public roads are not meant for occupation and no citizen has a right to squat on its side walks. The argument that there is a fundamental right and liberty to usurp public streets for business or habitat, was repelled by the Supreme Court.
(3.) FOUR judgments of the Supreme Court would suffice to reiterate that the law discourages and prohibits occupation of public streets and roads, to be left free from encroachment and for functional use for passage only. But, every local body in the State of Uttar Pradesh, confuses and caters to misplaced charity and vested interests and invites complications to be sorted out by the courts despite the fact that the Supreme Court, of late, had plugged this controversy.;