(O&M) Hari Ram vs Municipal Committee, Dhanauli, ...

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5419 P&H
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

(O&M) Hari Ram vs Municipal Committee, Dhanauli, ... on 11 March, 2024

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035183



                                                                                            1
RSA No.1775 of 1991 (O&M)                              2024:PHHC:035183

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

133

                                         RSA No.1775 of 1991 (O&M)
                                         Date of Decision: 11.03.2024



HARI RAM
                                                       ......Appellant
        Vs
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DHANAULA, BARNALA, SANGRUR
                                 ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:     Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate
             for the respondent/MC Dhanaula.
                          ****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 08.04.1991 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sangrur, Camp at Barnala whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.06.1989 passed by the Sub- Judge Ist Class, Barnala was reversed/modified.

[2]. Briefly stating, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction with prayer for restraining respondent/defendant from demolishing any portion of his house as detailed in the headnote of the plaint. It was pleaded that the house in question was purchased by the appellant/plaintiff from Bhagat Singh vide registered sale deed dated 16.11.1987 (Ex.P-1). It was further pleaded that the respondent/defendant was threatening to demolish the aforesaid house, forcibly thereby compelling the appellant to file the suit for permanent injunction.





                                       1 of 3
                    ::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2024 23:42:40 :::
                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035183



                                                                                            2
RSA No.1775 of 1991 (O&M)                              2024:PHHC:035183

[3].         Having filed written statement, respondent/defendant contested the

suit. Though it was admitted that the appellant/plaintiff purchased the house in dispute from Bhagat Singh, however it was pleaded that the said vendor Bhagat Singh had encroached upon certain portion of public street, situated towards western side of the said house regarding which a notice for removal of the said encroachment was served upon Bhagat Singh, followed by passing of an order dated 19.03.1986 (Ex.D-1).

[4]. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.06.1989 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and restrained the respondent/defendant from demolishing any portion of the house of plaintiff/defendant as detailed in the headnote of the plaint.

[5]. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent/defendant filed first appeal, however the same was disposed of with the observation that the ownership of respondent/plaintiff over the house in dispute was not in dispute, however the respondent/defendant (MC) shall demolish the encroached part if any, only after carrying out demarcation in terms of previous decision dated 19.03.1986 (Ex.D-1) between the respondent/defendant and the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff namely Bhagat Singh.

[6]. Impugning the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 08.04.1991, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case, any fresh demarcation of the site in dispute is carried out in the presence of the appellant/plaintiff in consultation with the relevant record, he would have no objection.





                                       2 of 3
                    ::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2024 23:42:41 :::
                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035183



                                                                                            3
RSA No.1775 of 1991 (O&M)                              2024:PHHC:035183

[7].         To this, learned counsel for the respondent/Municipal Committee,

Dhanaula, Barnala very fairly accepts the offer made by learned counsel for the appellant.

[8]. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for both the parties, the present appeal is disposed with a direction to the respondent/defendant to hold a fresh demarcation regarding the site in question, including the house as well as the street, in the presence of the appellant/plaintiff and also in consultation with the revenue officials/revenue record. The demarcation be carried out as per the High Court Rules and Orders. Further, the appellant/plaintiff shall be bound by such demarcation which shall govern the further course of action between the parties.

[9]. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.




                                                (HARKESH MANUJA)
March 11, 2024                                      JUDGE
Atik
             Whether speaking/reasoned          Yes/No
             Whether reportable                 Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035183

                                       3 of 3
                    ::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2024 23:42:41 :::