If public land belongs to everyone, why do vendors sit at the same spot every day as if it belongs to them?

The law says the vendor does not own the pavement, and the law is right. The street belongs to the public, with the municipality holding it in trust. A vendor is not a shopkeeper with a title or a lease. Under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, he may earn a right to vend, but never ownership of the exact patch he sits on.

Use and fairness are another matter. Picture a coconut-water seller outside the same metro station for ten years. Customers know where to find him. He keeps his corner clean. Other vendors leave the spot alone. The shopkeepers behind him tolerate him, or bargain with him, or quietly profit from the footfall he draws. That patch of pavement is no longer anonymous ground. It has become part of a working arrangement.

This is why vendors talk as if they “have” a spot the law says they do not own. In a Delhi study of stationary vendors, nearly all used the same place every day, and many left carts and goods there overnight. Vendors also reported renting, selling, and transferring these spots among themselves, none of it recognised on paper.

Ownership was never only about paper title. Property rights grow from peaceful use repeated over time, from local recognition, and from the ability to keep others out without a fight. This is close to the old idea of first possession: peaceful, long-standing use of a scarce resource, backed by labour and settled expectations, earns a claim that deserves respect.

So the use-right should strengthen when the vendor has held the spot peacefully for years, blocks no essential movement, is recognised by his neighbours, and serves customers who depend on him. It should weaken when he blocks passage, creates danger, keeps others from their own property, or grabs more space than he needs.

Both extremes fail. Declare that no vendor owns any spot, and you leave him at the mercy of bribes, strongmen, and political cover. Declare that whoever grabs first owns forever, and you invite chaos. The workable rule sits between: stable, limited, tradable use-rights. The vendor should not own the pavement outright, but he should not be treated as a trespasser every dawn either. His years of use and web of local bargains are real economic value, and the law should stop pretending they do not exist.