JANAPADA SABHA SAGAR v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SAGAR — 1978 DIGILAW 577 (MP)

JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this judgment the connected First Appeal No. 29 of 1972, between the same parties, is also disposed of. First Appeal No. 29 of 1972 arises out of Civil Suit No. 17-A of 1968, in which decree for specific performance of a contract of sale of the Veterinary Dispensary premises has been granted in favour of the respondents. First Appeal No 28 of 1972 arises out of a Civil Suit No. 18-A of 1968, in which the appellants suit for possession and for Rs. 25042-91 paise for use and occupation with future mesne profits, has been dismissed by the trial Court. Both the suits were consolidated and were disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2. ) IN the year 1905, the State Government acquired 0. 64 acres of land belonging to Shri B. L. Rai, in Katra bazar, Sagar, for the construction of the veterinary Dispensary for the District Council. The Janapada Sabha claims that actually a sale-deed was executed by Shri B. L. Rai in favour of the District Council for this 0-64 acres of land, i. e. 160 North-South ond 176 East-West, for a consideration of Rs. 1650 on 28-3-1905. On this land the Veterinary Dispensary and quarters for the staff were erected by the District Council, which was running the dispensary. The Janapada Sabha is the successor of the district Council, Sagar. The State Government by its Memorandum dated 27-1-1954 directed that the Veterinary Dispensaries situated in the urban area should be taken over and maintained by the Municipal Committees concerned. The compensation payable by the Municipal Committee to the Janapada Sabha would be determined later on, for transfer of the property. Accordingly, the municipal Council, Sagar, took over management of the Veterinary Dispensary, which was being run by the Janapada Sabha as from 1-3-1954, but the value of the property remained to be determined. Therefore, the Collector, Sagar, tried to persuade the respective parties to come to an agreed price to be paid by the Municipal Council to the Janapada Sabha for transfer of this property to the Municipal Council. Therefore, the Collector, Sagar, tried to persuade the respective parties to come to an agreed price to be paid by the Municipal Council to the Janapada Sabha for transfer of this property to the Municipal Council. Meetings were held from time to time and finally on 18-11-1964 in the meeting called by the Collector and attended by the President, Vice-President and the Chief Municipal Officer, on behalf of the Municipal Council and by the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Janapada Sabha, it was unanimously decided that the Municipal Council will pay Rs. 56,000 to the Janapada Sabha in full and final settlement of their claim in respect of the costs of building and land, including the rent at the rate of Rs. 150 per month accrued so far. The question of payment of grant of rs. 1200 per year by the Janapada Sabha since 1954 was also settled on payment of the aforesaid amount. However, the Janapada Sabha, by its resolution dated 27-2-1965 asserted that in that meeting it was also decided that besides the payment of Rs. 56,000, the Municipal Council had agreed to waive its claim of Rs 258 18-23 paise on account of the share in stamp duty payable by the Janapada Sabha to the Municipal Council. The Collector by his letter dated 4-5-1965 informed the Janapada Sabha that the waiving of the claim towards stamp duty was a separate issue and should be decided separately. The Municipal Council in its turn had earlier claimed that from the amount of Rs. 56,000, agreed upon Rs. 13,200 has to be deducted towards the grant, which was payable by the Janapada Sabha to the Municipal Council for maintenance of the Veterinary Dispensary. Thereafter the Janapada Sabha, by its resolution dated 15-6-1965 decided that the Janapada Sabha was not in favour of selling the Veterinary Dispensary premises and it was also decided to get the said premises vacated by taking the necessary legal action. A notice dated 20 9-1965 was served by the Janapada Sabha on the Municipal Council for possession of the Veterinary Dispensary premises. This claim was refuted by the Municipal Council, which by a separate notice dated 8-12-1965 demanded specific performance of the contract of sale dated 18-11-1964 by the Janapada sabha for sale of the Veterinary Dispensary premises for Rs. 56,000. This claim was refuted by the Municipal Council, which by a separate notice dated 8-12-1965 demanded specific performance of the contract of sale dated 18-11-1964 by the Janapada sabha for sale of the Veterinary Dispensary premises for Rs. 56,000. In its reply the Janapada Sabha disputed that there was any valid contract of sale. The Municipal Council then filed Civil Suit No. 17-A of 1968 for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 18-11-1964 and the Janapada Sabha filed Civil Suit No. 18-A of 1968 for possession and for Rs. 25042. 91 paise towards use and occupation of the premises and also claimed future mesne profits. ( 3. ) THE case of the Municipal Council in Civil Suit No. 17-A of 1968 is that in a joint meeting between the representatives of the Municipal Council and the Janapada Sabha held on 18-11-1964, a legal, valid and a binding con-, tract was entered into for sale of the Veterinary Dispensary premises for a consideration of Rs. 56,000. The costs of stamp duty and the registration charges were to be borne by the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council was and is always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract, but the janapada Sabha by notice dated 20-9-1965 has repudiated the contract, hence the suit has been filed for specific performance of the contract of sale. The defendant in his written statement denied that there was any such valid contract of sale between the Municipal Council and the Janapada Sabha. A contract of sale could only be as per section 66 of the C. P. and Berar Local government Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. As such, the alleged contract of sale is not legally enforceable and is void. Besides, in the meeting held on 18-11-1964, the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapada Sabha were present at the direction of the Collector and these two officers were never authorised by the Janapada sabha to finalise the sale of the Veterinary Dispensary premises. It was denied that the price agreed was Rs. 56000. But on the other hand, it was asserted that in addition to the payment of Rs. 56,000, the Municipal Council had agreed to waive its claim for Rs. 25,818. 23 paise towards the share in stamp duty payable by the Janapada Sabha to the Municipal Council. It was denied that the price agreed was Rs. 56000. But on the other hand, it was asserted that in addition to the payment of Rs. 56,000, the Municipal Council had agreed to waive its claim for Rs. 25,818. 23 paise towards the share in stamp duty payable by the Janapada Sabha to the Municipal Council. The Janapada sabha by its resolution dated 27-2-1965 had resolved to sell the Veterinary Dispensary premises on this condition, but since this condition was not acceptable there was no completed contract. ( 4. ) THE case of Janapada Sabha in Civil Suit No. 18-A of 1968 is that the janapada Sabha is owner of the Veterinary Dispensary premises, the management of which was taken over by the Municipal Council on 1-3-1954 on the direction of the State Government. Since then the Municipal Council was a licensee of the Janapada Sabha for use and occupation of the said premises. The Janapada Sabha by its resolution dated 15-6-1965 had unanimously resolved that the Janapada Sabha was not in favour of selling the Veterinary Dispensary premises and, therefore, the said premises should be vacated by the municipal Council. Accordingly, a notice was served on 20 9-65 terminating the licence of the Municipal Council. But, since the Municipal council did not vacate the premises, this suit has been filed. The Janapada Sabha has claimed possession of the Veterinary Dispensary premises, shown by the letters A. B. C. D , in the plaint map. It was also mentioned that in the portion shown in red by chequered lines a c g k j i e b a in the plaint map within the Veterinary Dispensary premises, the Municipal Council has derived profits by way of rents from persons, who have been permitted to have their Tapras on this land. The Janapada Sabha has claimed Rs. 7600 at the rate of Rs. 200 per month for use and occupation of the Veterinary Dispensary premises by the Municipal Council. The claim is rs. 17,442. 92 paise towards the rents recovered for the area covered by the red chequered lines for the period from 1-7-1963 to 31-8-1968, i. e. in all total claim is Rs. 25042. 91 paise. The Municipal Council in its written-statement admitted that the Janapada Sabha was the owner of the Veterinary Dispensary premises. The claim is rs. 17,442. 92 paise towards the rents recovered for the area covered by the red chequered lines for the period from 1-7-1963 to 31-8-1968, i. e. in all total claim is Rs. 25042. 91 paise. The Municipal Council in its written-statement admitted that the Janapada Sabha was the owner of the Veterinary Dispensary premises. However, it was asserted by the Municipal Council that the portion shown in red chequered lines a c g k j i e b a is outside the Veterinary Dispensary premises and is property of the Council and does not belong to the Janapada Sabha. In the alternative it was claimed that so far as this area shown its red chequered lines is concerned, the Janapada Sabha has lost its title because of adverse possession of the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council further asserted that since there is a valid contract of sale by the Janapada sabha in its favour, the suit fired by the Janapada Sabha is liable to be dismissed. ( 5. ) THE learned trial Judge has decreed the suit of the Municipal Council, but has directed it to pay Rs 82345 instead of Rs. 56,000 in order to get a registered sale-deed from the Janapada Sabha. Because of this decree, the suit of the Janapada Sabha has been dismissed. The trial Judge held that the market price of the Veterinary Dispensary premises comes to Rs. 82345 and not Rs. 56,000 and, therefore, there was a question of waiver of the claim of rs. 25818. 23 paise towards the share in the stamp duty by the Municipal council. Although the trial Judge held that the contract was not valid, being not in compliance with the provisions of the Act, and the Chairman and the chief Executive Officer of the Janapada Sabha were not authorised to enter into a contract of sale on behalf of the Janapada Sabha. But by a queer reasoning the trial Judge proceeded to grant a decree for specific performance on the ground that the Veterinary Dispensary is needed for the welfare of the tax payers and since the management is with the Municipal Council, the property must be kept by the Municipal Council. The building and the land are ideally suited for the Veterinary Dispensary and it would be proper not to remove the Veterinary Dispensary from the present premises to some other place. The building and the land are ideally suited for the Veterinary Dispensary and it would be proper not to remove the Veterinary Dispensary from the present premises to some other place. Hence as long as the Veterinary Dispensary is located in the suit premises, the Janapada Sabha is not entitled to evict the Municipal Council. Accordingly, there was no question of giving possession by the Municipal council. The trial Court, however, held that Rs. 200 per month is the reasonable sum for the use and occupation of the premises. ( 6. ) ON hearing the parties and on perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained in law. After having held that there is no valid contract, the trial Judge had no jurisdiction to grant a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 18-11-1964. Under section 60 of the Act, the Janapada sabha is a body corporate and has perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 66 of the Act is as under: "s. 65.-No public places, lands or other immovable property belonging to, vested in or under the management of a Sabha, shall be sold, leased or otherwise alienated, save in accordance with such rules as the Provincial Government may make in this behalf. " Under section 182 (2) (XXII), the State Government has framed Rules in this regard. Rule 2 says that the Sabha might pass a resolution that any property belonging to it, other than the property vested in it by a notification under section 61, or placed under its management under sub-section (2) of section 67, is no longer required or is not likely to be required in the near future for the purposes of the Act and the Chief Executive Officer may thereupon transfer such property by sale, exchange or lease. Therefore, for a valid sale, there has to be a prior resolution of the Sabha. There is no such resolution passed by the Janapada Sabha for sale of the Veterinary dispensary premises. As such, the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer were not authorised to enter into any negotiation for sale of the said premises. Therefore, for a valid sale, there has to be a prior resolution of the Sabha. There is no such resolution passed by the Janapada Sabha for sale of the Veterinary dispensary premises. As such, the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer were not authorised to enter into any negotiation for sale of the said premises. Rule 3 further says that the transfer of property referred to in rule 2 by lease or sale shall not be made except by a public auction. So, even if there is a resolution by the Sabha for sale of any of its property, the same is to be by a public auction. This being the mode prescribed for transfer of the property by the Janapada Sabha under the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules, the sale could have only been effected in the manner as mentioned in the Rules. Therefore, the trial judge was justified in holding that there was no valid contract binding on the janapada Sabha and the agreement dated 18-11-1964 is void. The agreement dated 18-11-1964 could only be a valid contract if it was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. There being no enforceable contract, no decree for specific performance could be granted and the trial Judge was in error in decreeing the suit of the Municipal Council on extraneous consideration. ( 7. ) A Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Committee, Seoni v. State of M. P. (1961 MPLJ 667), interpreting a similar provision in the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, has held that any transfer made in violation of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, is void altogether. Under section 42 of the c. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, a Municipal Committee could transfer any immovable property except in pursuance of a resolution passed at a meeting by a majority and in accordance with rules made under the Act. The rule further provided that no property, which is capable of yielding any income, should be transferred by sale or lease except to the highest bidder at a public auction. In that case the Municipal Committee had decided to issue a public proclamation stating that the Kothas and Chabutras, located in market sites would be leased out by public auction, which were earlier leased out to some of the respondents. In that case the Municipal Committee had decided to issue a public proclamation stating that the Kothas and Chabutras, located in market sites would be leased out by public auction, which were earlier leased out to some of the respondents. The Collector had stayed the auction of the sites on the ground that it would not be just to displace the lessees, who were occupying the sites for the last 30 years. Bye-law No. 178 authorised the Municipal committee to grant temporary leases. It was held that that bye-law was ultra vires, being contrary to the Act and the Rules and the Collector had no jurisdiction to stay the auction. The provisions in the present Act are similar. Therefore, the sale is to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Supreme Court in Dr. H. S. Rikhy v. New delhi Municipality ( AIR 1962 SC 554 ) has held thus: - "the legal significance of the expression shall not be binding on the Committee" in section 47 is that the contract, the power to enter which is given by section 18, shall not be enforceable against the Municipal Committee, and it is clear that an agreement not enforceable in law is void. It must, therefore, be held that the provisions of section 47 are essential ingredients of the power contained in section 18 of the Act. Hence, the argument that a contract which has not been executed as required by section 47, may not be binding on the Municipal Committee, but it is not void, is not correct. Under section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the contract to transfer property of the value exceeding Rs 500 has to be made by a written instrument executed by the President or the Vice-President and at least two other members of the Committee and the execution has to be attested by the Secretary. These conditions were not fulfilled in that case and, therefore, the Supreme Court held that the contract was not binding on the Municipal Committee, as the provision was mandatory. " ( 8. ) THIS apart, a contract, which is not concluded and which is merely at the stage of negotiations, cannot be enforced. These conditions were not fulfilled in that case and, therefore, the Supreme Court held that the contract was not binding on the Municipal Committee, as the provision was mandatory. " ( 8. ) THIS apart, a contract, which is not concluded and which is merely at the stage of negotiations, cannot be enforced. It has been found by the learned trial Judge that neither the Municipal Council, nor the Janapada Sabha passed any resolution authorising its office-bearers to negotiate the sale of the veterinary dispensary premises by the Janapada Sabha. No resolution of the council or the Janapada Sabha has been produced showing that its office bearers were so authorised. It appears that in pursuance to the memorandum of the State Government dated 27-1-1954 (Ex. D/1) the management of the veterinary dispensary was taken over by the Municipal Council and a direction was given to the Collector by the State Government to fix a compensation payable by the Municipal Council for transfer of the said property. In view of this the Collector convened a joint meeting of the office bearers of the municipal Council and the Janapada Sabha in order to settle the disputed points, which were pending since long in this matter. It appears that several meetings were held and on 9-6-1964 some decisions were taken. Ultimately, in the meeting held on 18-11-1964 and attended by the President, Vice-President and the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council on the one hand and the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapada Sabha on the other, it was agreed that the price of the Veterinary dispensary premises to be payable by the Municipal Council to the Janapada Sabha would be rs. 56,000. The Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapada sabha were not authorised by the Janapada Sabha to negotiate the price of the vaterinary dispensary premises, but they attended the meetings at the instance of the Collector. This price was not acceptable to the Janapada Sabha, which by its resolution (Ex. P/3) dated 27-2-1965 informed the Collector that in the meeting held on 18-11-1964 it was further decided between the parties that the Municipal Council would waive its claim towards the stamp duty of rs. 25,818 23 paise and, therefore, the premises of the Veterinary dispensary can only be transferred on further fulfilment of this condition. This was not acceptable to the Municipal Council. 25,818 23 paise and, therefore, the premises of the Veterinary dispensary can only be transferred on further fulfilment of this condition. This was not acceptable to the Municipal Council. The Collector also by his memorandum dated 4-5-1965 (Ex. D/8) informed the Janapada Sabha that this was a separate issue and should be decided separately. Ultimately, by a resolution dated 15 6 1965 the Janapada Sabha resolved that they no longer desire to transfer the premises of the Veterinary dispensary to the Municipal Council and that the Municipal Council should vacate the said premises. As such, there was no completed contract and it was only at the negotiation stage. At no stage the janapada Sabha accepted the price of Rs. 56,000 for transfer of the premises of the Veterinary dispensary to the Municipal Council. The price agreed upon by the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapada Sabha can have no legal sanctity in the absence of any ratification by the Janapada Sabha. The negotiations, therefore, broke down over the price to be paid by the municipal Council and no valid and enforceable contract was brought into force. The State Government by its memorandum, Ex. D/4, dated 23-5-1966 informed the Municipal Council that the Janapada Sabha was not prepared to sell the said premises to the Municipal Council and if the Municipal Council so desired, it can shift the Veterinary dispensary to some other place. On this count also the plaintiffs suit should have been dismissed in the absence of a completed contract. ( 9. ) NOW remains the suit of the Janapada Sabha for possession of the veterinary dispensary premises and the claim for Rs. 25,042. 91 paise, for use and occupation of the said premises by the Municipal Council for a period from 1-7-1963 to 31-8 1968 The Municipal Council has admitted that the janapada Sabha is the owner of the said premises, in which the Veterinary dispensary and quarters are located. They have only disputed the title of the janapada Sabha with respect to the strip of land shown in red chequered lines "a c g k j i e b a" surrounding the Veterinary dispensary. The Municipal council claims this strip of land as belonging to it. They have only disputed the title of the janapada Sabha with respect to the strip of land shown in red chequered lines "a c g k j i e b a" surrounding the Veterinary dispensary. The Municipal council claims this strip of land as belonging to it. In the alternative, it is claimed that this strip of land, shown in red chequered lines in the plaint map, even if owned by the Janapada Sabha, it has lost its title by adverse possession for more than 12 years by the Municipal Council. The Janapada Sabha being a local body, the period of adverse possession has to be 30 years as per article 111 of the Limitation Act. Though, there is no such pleading, in the course of arguments in this appeal it has further been urged by the Municipal council that all round the Veterinary dispensary premises Pakka drains were constructed by it on this strip of land and, therefore, this strip has vested in the Municipal Council under section 38 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities act, 1922. The Janapada Sabha has claimed separately different amounts for the use and occupation of the Veterinary dispensary premises and for this strip of land, on which stalls have been erected and let out by the Municipal council, which has been deriving profits from the occupants. For the use and occupation of the dispensary premises, the Janapada Sabha has claimed rs. 7600 at the rale of Rs. 200 per month and Rs. 17442 91 paise for use and occupation of the strip of land, for the period from 1-7-1963 to 31-8-1968, i. e. for 38 months. There is obviously a mistake about the period mentioned, it should be from 1-7-1963 to 31-8-1966 and not 31-8-1968, which makes up the period of 38 months. Whether the Janapada Sabha is entitled to claim rs. 17442. 91 paise, alleged to be the actual rents recovered by the Municipal council from the stall-holders, is dependent on the fact whether the Janapada sabha has got title over this strip of land. ( 10. ) THE land on which the Veterinary dispensary premises have been constructed was acquired by the State Government for construction of the veterinary dispensary by the District Council as per the Notification, Ex. D/11, under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 20-2-1905, from one b. K. Rai. ( 10. ) THE land on which the Veterinary dispensary premises have been constructed was acquired by the State Government for construction of the veterinary dispensary by the District Council as per the Notification, Ex. D/11, under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 20-2-1905, from one b. K. Rai. In this Notification the area mentioned is 0. 64 acres and the boundaries are given as under : West by the Pakka road to the Station, South by Pakka well at the corner and Mst. Poonas house, East by fields and Nazul land of the Municipality and North by a piece of land belonging to Shri b. K. Rai. Exhibit D/12 is the bill for payment of compensation and Ex. D/13 is the receipt of the payment of compensation by the District Council to the owner. The Janapada Sabha in its plaint has asserted that a sale deed was also executed by Shri B. K. Rai in favour of the District Council, but this sale-deed has not been produced. Deokinandan (witness No. 5, for the Council), who is working in the Collectorate, Sagar, stated that in the records the aforesaid acquisition proceedings are not traceable. Therefore, we have to deter-mine the dimensions of the plot on the basis of contemporaneous documents, which are available in these cases. The Janapada Sabha has produced the record-plan, Ex. D/l5, of the Veterinary dispensary premises, which is dated 4-8-1921 showing the plan for constructions on the land acquired by the District council. This has been duly proved by Abdul Majid, witness No. 3 for the sabha, who has actually traced this map from some original map. The map bears his signature and the date 4 8-1921, This plan being more than 30 years old and being produced from proper custody, we can accept its correctness as there was no such dispute then. The dimensions of the plot have been given as 169. 06 on the North, 172. 03 on the South, 153. 3 on the East and 163 on the West. But, this map also shows that the actual construction has been made on a smaller area, which has been marked by us in blue pencil, as A/1, b/1, C/1, D/1. There was no construction made on the strip of land between a B C D and A/1, B/1, C/1, D/1. 3 on the East and 163 on the West. But, this map also shows that the actual construction has been made on a smaller area, which has been marked by us in blue pencil, as A/1, b/1, C/1, D/1. There was no construction made on the strip of land between a B C D and A/1, B/1, C/1, D/1. This plan also shows that compound walls were erected around the Veterinary dispensary premises, leaving out the strip of land. A drain has been shown on the southern portion of the strip of land. The Janapada Sabha has alleged that the Municipal Council has erected stalls on the northern, southern and western portions of this strip and leased out those stalls to different persons. According to Abdul Majid, he has been seeing these stalls since the year 1940, from which the Municipal Council has been recovering rents. Then there is another map, Ex. D/14, dated 23-9-1944, produced by the Janapada Sabha, in which the dimension of the plot has been given as 160 x 176. It is not known as to on what basis this map was prepared because there is discrepancy with the record-plan, Ex. D/15. May be this was the dimension of the plot actually acquired for the Janapada Sabha, but it appears that the Janapada Sabha never took possession of the entire land and left out this strip of land, on which there were Kaccha public drains all round. ( 11. ) IT is true that the Municipal Council has not produced any document to show whether this strip of land was at any time acquired by it. The witnesses examined by the Municipal Council could not say as to how this strip of land, surrounding the Veterinary dispensary, came to the possession of the Municipal Council. But the plaint-map of the Municipal Council does show that there are public drains all round the Veterinary dispensary premises and to us this map gives a clear picture of the present position. The dimensions of the plot occupied by the Veterinary dispensary premises are given as 144. 6xl58 and the draughtsman, Diwakar Gurja, witness No. 2 for the council had prepared this map on the basis of actual measurements. This is corroborated by the Municipal Engineer, Shri Shriram Pandey, witness No. 3 for the Council. According to Shri Pandey, the Veterinary dispensary premises covers the area 22831 square feet. 6xl58 and the draughtsman, Diwakar Gurja, witness No. 2 for the council had prepared this map on the basis of actual measurements. This is corroborated by the Municipal Engineer, Shri Shriram Pandey, witness No. 3 for the Council. According to Shri Pandey, the Veterinary dispensary premises covers the area 22831 square feet. We accept this to be the actual area covered by the Veterinary dispensary premises and not the area of 27878 square feet claimed by the witnesses for the Janapada Sabha, because this includes also the area of the strip of land outside the Veterinary dispensary premises. Under section 38 (c) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, all public drains and all drains in, alongside or under any street shall vest in the Municipal committee Therefore, if there are public drains all round the Veterinary dispensary premises, the same have vested in the Municipal Council. This is also proved from the documents produced by the Janapada Sabha. Exhibit, d/l6 is a notice dated 3-9-1952 given by the Janapada Sabha to the Municipal council to remove the encroachments on the strip of land. After the service of notice the site was jointly inspected by the Deputy Commissioner, the president of the Municipal Council and the Chief Executive Officer of the janapada Sabha and the Inspection-Note, which is signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapada Sabha is as under : "along the northern boundary of the dispensary buildings, the Municipal Committee acquired 20 ft. wide area for a road and made the existing drain pacca by the side of the wall of dispensary buildings and widened the road up and over the drain. The drain is now an underground drain, and there would be no objection to it provided that the Thelas of the refugees, which are placed on the drain abutting the wall of the dispensary buildings are removed so as to allow free access of air etc. to the dispensary building. On the eastern boundary of the dispensary building there are poles showing the boundary. The sand between the dispensary building wall and the poles is lying open and is commonly used as a place for defection by the public. On the southern side too, there is sort of kachha drain and some open land of the Veterinary dispensary. On the eastern boundary of the dispensary building there are poles showing the boundary. The sand between the dispensary building wall and the poles is lying open and is commonly used as a place for defection by the public. On the southern side too, there is sort of kachha drain and some open land of the Veterinary dispensary. Some unauthorised thelas have been placed on this open land by the side of the drain. The President, municipal Committee, Sagar, agreed to have them removed. There is no trouble on the western side, i. e. in the front of the dispensary, where the Municipality has already constructed a Pacca drain. It was agreed that the Municipality would have the Thelas removed as soon as the Naya Bazzar proposed by the Municipal Committee is ready, say after the next rains: Although, the land and drains as stated above are claimed by the veterinary dispensary, there is no objection to vest these lands in the Municipality for purposes of constructing Pacca drains only, so that the water from the surrounding localities can pass through them and that at the same time keep the surroundings of the veterinary dispensary clean and avoid the use of open land and Kachcha drain by the public which has been using it either for defection or for urinating at all times. It was agreed that if the Thelas are removed and the Pucca drains are constructed, the dispute would end. " Now, the Pakka drains have been constructed all round the Veterinary dispensary premises, on this strip of land. The Janapada Sabha is clearly not in possession of this Jand at least since 1921 when the Veterinary dispensary premises were constructed and this strip of land is in adverse possession for more than 30 years by the Municipal Council; otherwise also there being public drains all round the Veterinary dispensary of this strip of land, the same has vested in the Municipal Council. Therefore, the Janapada Sabha has no right or title to claim possession of this strip of land. The Janapada sabha is only entitled to possession of the Veterinary dispensary premises, shown by letters A/1, B/1, C/1, D/l in the plaint map of the Sabha. ( 12. ) REGARDING the claim of Rs. 17442. Therefore, the Janapada Sabha has no right or title to claim possession of this strip of land. The Janapada sabha is only entitled to possession of the Veterinary dispensary premises, shown by letters A/1, B/1, C/1, D/l in the plaint map of the Sabha. ( 12. ) REGARDING the claim of Rs. 17442. 91 paise for the period 1-7-1963 to 31-8-1966 for use and occupation of the strip of land by the Municipal council by erection of stalls and letting out those stalls and recovering rent from different occupants, the claim is liable to be dismissed, as this has been found that the Janapada Sabha has no right or title over this strip of land. ( 13. ) NOW remains the claim of Rs. 7600 for use and occupation of the veterinary dispensary premises from 1-7-1963 to 31-8-1966, at the rate of rs. 200 per month. The Municipal Council in its written-statement has admitted the title of Janapada Sabha over this property and they have also admitted that the Municipal Council is a licensee of the Janapada Sabha of this property. The Janapada Sabha has claimed the amount at the rate of Rs. 200 per month for use and occupation of the Veterinary dispensary premises and this has not been specifically denied by the Municipal Council in its written-statement. Looking to the built-up area and the situation of this property, there is no doubt that the Janapada Sabha is entitled to a decree for this claim. The Veterinary dispensary premises consist of the dispensary building. Veterinary Assistant Surgeons quarters, Travelling Assistant Surgeons quarters. Compounders quarters, servant quarters, sweepers quarters, operation theatre, cattle-shed a stable with open courtyard. If these premises are let out, which is in the heart of the Sagar City, it can easily fetch Rs. 200 per month as rent, which is the amount claimed by the Janapada Sabha. The Janapada Sabha is, therefore, entitled to a decree for possession of the Veterinary dispensary premises, shown by letters A/1, B/1, C/1, D/1; a decree for Rs. 7000 towards use and occupation of these premises from 1-10 1963 to 31-8 1966 which is within limitation; future mesne profits from 1-9-1966 till the delivery of possession by the Municipal Council to the Janapada Sabha with costs. The decretal amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 7000 towards use and occupation of these premises from 1-10 1963 to 31-8 1966 which is within limitation; future mesne profits from 1-9-1966 till the delivery of possession by the Municipal Council to the Janapada Sabha with costs. The decretal amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The remaining part of the claim for possession of the strip of land in between the letters A B C D and A/1, B/1, C/1 D/1 and also the claim of the amount of Rs. 17442. 91 paise towards use and occupation for the strip of land are rejected. ( 14. ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, both these appeals are allowed with costs. The judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 17-A of 1968 are set aside and the suit of the Municipal Council is dismissed with costs throughout. The suit of the Janapada Sabha is partly decreed to the extent of possession of the veterinary dispensary premises, shown by letters A/1, B/1, C/1, D/1 The claim for Rs. 7000 towards use and occupation charges from 1-10-1963 to 31-8-1966 also is decreed and for future mesne profits from 1-9-1966 till the delivery of possession an enquiry be made. The claims are decreed with costs throughout. The decretal amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Counsels fee in each case shall be as per the Schedule, if certified. The rest of the claims of the Janapada Sabha are rejected. Appeals allowed.