( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the plaintiff in OS. No. 1136 of 1965 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Bellary, is directed against an affirming judgment and decree made by the Civil Judge, Bellary, in RA. No. 66/68. The said appeal had been preferred by the present appellant against the judgment and decree of the Principal Munsiff, dismissing his suit for injunction. The material facts are as follows: s. No. 640 2 is a Government poromboke land and a part of it forms the road margin of Bellary-Ananthapur Road, situated within the limits of bellary Municipality, the respondent herein. The appellant has put up a wooden 'bunk' on a portion of the said road margin and been running a beedi shop therein. The respondent called upon him to execute a lease deed in respect of the space occupied by the 'bunk' on 3-11-1965, whereupon he applied for the grant of the necessary licence on 1-3-1965. The respondent by a resolution dt. 30-9-1965 granted permission for the lease of the space occupied by the 'bunk' on certain terms. On Being communicated with the said decision, the appellant paid Rs. 50 towards the arrears of rent in part payment'. It may be noted here that it is averred in the plaint that he took all the steps in this regard attributed to him under presure. Subsequently, he has filed the suit, which has given rise to the present appeal, for injunction. His case principally is that the Municipality has no vested right in a Government 'poromboke' land as the same should be deemed to have been reserved by the Government. It is, however, not disputed that the 'bunk' is situated on a 'road margin'. In short the case is that the Government alone was competent to evict him. The case on behalf of the Municipality is that although the road margin is a Government poromboke, it had a right to regulate such leases by virtue of a notification issued by the erst while Madras State in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the relevant provisions of the Madras District Municipalities act, 1920. The Notification in question is GO. No. 2428 L and M dt. 18-5-1934. Incidentally, reliance was also placed on the provisions of S. 81 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964. The Notification in question is GO. No. 2428 L and M dt. 18-5-1934. Incidentally, reliance was also placed on the provisions of S. 81 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding, inter alia, that the Municipality had the legal right to regulate the lease of land forming road margins. On appeal, the said decision was affirmed by the learned Civil judge, Bellary. Hence, this Second Appeal by the plaintiff. ( 2 ) ON behalf of the appellant, Sri B. Ramachandra Rao, learned Advocate, contends thus: S. 81 (2) (f) of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has no application to the case. It is applicable only if the land is shown to have been vested in the Municipality and not otherwise. Since the land admittedly is a Government Poromboke, being a survey number, it must be deemed to have been reserved within the meaning of the provisions of S. 81 (2) (f) of the Act. This position is in no way altered by the Notification of 18-5-1934 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the Municipality. Lastly, the Municipality's control is confined to the street proper and not to the road margin. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent-Municipality, Sri K. A. Swami, the learned Counsel, contended that the road margin is part of the street and it is clearly vested in the Municipality by virtue of the operation of statute, namely S. 61 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. Such vesting is clearly saved by the provisions of S. 382 of the Mysore Municipalities act. It is further his argument that the Notification of 18-5-1934, which is also saved by S. 382 aforementioned, clearly indicates that the then Government of Madras had clearly recognised this position, both as regards the road and road margin, and had sought to further regulate the powers to lease such road margins, exercisable by the Municipalities. ( 4 ) ON giving my careful consideration to the matter, I am clearly of the view that there is no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. ( 4 ) ON giving my careful consideration to the matter, I am clearly of the view that there is no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. ( 5 ) IT can be seen that the basis for the argument of the appellant is provided by the provisions of S. 81 (2 (f) of the Mysore Municipalities Act, wherein it is provided that in regard to property vested in the Municipal council it must be administered by U as a trustee and such power would rot extend to property reserved by the Government. It is further provided that such power as a trustee is exercisable on all "public Streets and the pavements", among other matters. It is no doubt true that this provision expressly stipulated that the property in such public street and pavement should have legally vested in the Municipality in some manner. Indeed, the argument is that it has nowhere been shown by the Municipality that the street and pavement, which is nothing other than the road margin' in question, had been vested in it. In my opinion, this argument is easily met by a reference to the provisions of S. 61 of the Madras District municipalities Act. S. 61 of that Act reads thus: "61 (1) All public streets in any municipality, with the pavements stones and other materials thereof, and all works, materials and other things provided for such streets, all sewers, drains drainage works, tunnels and culverts, whether made at the cost of the municipal fund or otherwise, in, alongside or under any street, whether public or private, and all works, materials and things appertaining thereto shall vest in the municipal council. (2) The State Government may by notification withdraw any such street, sewer, drain, drainage work, tunnel or culvert from the control of the council. " ( 6 ) IT is plain from the above provisions that 'public 'streets' and 'pavements' are among the properties which have been vested in a Municipal council by the Legislature itself. It is further clear that such property could be diverted by the Government by the issue of an appropriate Notification. In the instant case, it has not been shown to me that the street or road margin had been divested from the control of the Municipal Council by any action taken pursuant to sub-sec (2) of S. 61. It is further clear that such property could be diverted by the Government by the issue of an appropriate Notification. In the instant case, it has not been shown to me that the street or road margin had been divested from the control of the Municipal Council by any action taken pursuant to sub-sec (2) of S. 61. In the circumstances, i have no hesitation in holding that the street in question has vested in the respondent-Municipality. In this view, it is unnecessary any more to comment on the contents and effect of the Notification of 18-5-1934 on which strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the Municipality. ( 7 ) THE further argument that a road margin' did not form part of the street is also devoid of merit. The 'road margin', if literally interpreted, may perhaps support a view that it is one merely forming a boundary to the road and, therefore, does not form part of a road. But it must be remembered that it is a technical term commonly employed in connection with road engineering works. When so used, what it really means is that it is the unpaved portion of the road used for walking. This apart, it seems to me that in the context of the facts of the present case, the road margin is clearly included in the word pavement', occurring, in juxtaposition with the word 'public street', in S. 61 and 81 (2) (f) of the Madras and Mysore acts respectively. It also seems to me that such pavement is part of the road. I am fortified in this view by the meaning assigned to the word 'pavement' in a Dictionary of English language. In Chambers Twentieth century Dictionary one of the meanings assigned to it is: "a footway by the side of a street (sometimes even when unpaved ). " ( 8 ) IT is clear from the facts of the case on hand that the road margin is one such pavement. That being so, it is clearly vested in the Municipality by virtue of the provisions of S. 61 of the Madras District Municipalities act, 1920. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that it still retained the revenue survey number would not conclusively lead to an inference that the land had been reserved by the Government or had not vested in the municipality. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that it still retained the revenue survey number would not conclusively lead to an inference that the land had been reserved by the Government or had not vested in the municipality. The judgment under appeal has to be sustained, although for reasons different from those furnished by the learned Civil Judge. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal deserves to fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .