Municipal vesting of a public street gives control, not ownership; the State may still sue to recover possession.

Statutory vesting of a public street in a municipality under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act does not transfer absolute ownership of the soil; it gives only a statutory right to control, manage and maintain the street as a street. If the land is diverted to a use inconsistent with that character, the municipal interest in the street ends. The State therefore remains the owner and may assert title and seek eviction of an illegal occupier. The reported conclusion states that the State's title was not extinguished by municipal vesting and that the suit for eviction could be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State retained ownership and could seek eviction when land vested in the Municipality as a street under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act.

Analysis: The statutory vesting of public streets under Section 116(g) did not amount to a transfer of absolute ownership in the soil. The Municipality obtained only a special statutory right to control, manage, and maintain the street as a street. When the street was diverted to a use inconsistent with that character, the municipal interest in the street determined. On that footing, the State, as owner of the land, remained entitled to assert title and maintain an action for eviction of a person in illegal occupation.

Conclusion: The State's title was not extinguished by the vesting of the street in the Municipality, and the State was entitled to maintain the suit for eviction; the finding of the High Court was therefore set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Vesting of a public street in a municipality under the municipal law confers only a statutory right of control and management over the street qua street, not absolute ownership of the soil, so the State may recover possession if the street is put to a different use.

---