Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nagar Palika Sangrur And Others vs Satish Kumar And Others on 4 July, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
211 RSA-2701-1995 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 04.07.2024
NAGAR PALIKA SANGRUR .... Appellant
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR AND ANR .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate
Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate and
Mr. Tushaar Madaan, Advocate for the respondents.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
defendant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1994
passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1995
passed by the First Appellant Court.
2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff-respondents purchased a
site vide sale deed dated 16.02.1983 and thereafter a house was constructed.
A notice was received by the plaintiff-respondents on 28.06.1993 for
demolishing the Chabutra constructed on the house of the plaintiff-
respondents. It was pleaded that the Chabutra was in existence for the last 3
years whereas it has been mentioned in the notice that the same was
constructed about 6 months ago. The notice did not disclose the exact date
when the Chabutra was constructed, Hence the suit for permanent injunction
restraining the defendant-appellant from demolishing the construction.
integrity of this judgment/order.
211 RSA-2701-1995 (O&M) -2-
3. On notice the defendant-appellant appeared and contested the
suit and stated that the Chabutra had been constructed without permission of
the Municipal Committee and that the Chabutra was constructed in the year
1993 and also took the legal objection that no notice was served under
Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have served a notice under Section
49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, if so, its effect ? OPP
3. Relief.
5. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.1994 the Trial Court
decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the
defendant-appellant which appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 30.05.1995. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would contend that
both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal. It
is contended that the Chabutra was constructed without permission. It is
further the contention that the Chabutra was constructed in the year 1993
and immediately the notice was issued under Section 195-A of the Punjab
Municipal Act. It is further the contention that the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to try the present suit.
integrity of this judgment/order.
211 RSA-2701-1995 (O&M) -3-
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents would
contend that the notice (Ex.P-3) which was issued by the Municipal
Corporation was dated 24.06.1993 on the basis of a report (Ex.D-1) which is
dated 30.06.1993. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has pointed
out that Labh Singh, who is the author of the report (Ex.D-1), had stepped
into the witness box as DW-1. He did not mention in his report as to whether
the Chabutra was constructed in the year 1993. It is further the contention
that Labh Singh (DW-1) has stated that he did not know when the ground
floor was constructed. However, he admitted that the house was constructed
8-9 years ago. Learned counsel has further relied upon the testimony of PW-
1 Gian Chand who is a retired Municipal Commissioner who stated that the
construction of the Chabutra was an old construction.
8. Heard.
9. In the present case the notice (Ex.P-3) was issued on
24.06.1993 on the basis of a report (Ex.D-1) dated 30.06.1993. The author of
the report Labh Singh, Building Clerk admitted that the construction of the
house was raised 8-9 years ago. He further stated that he did not know when
the ground floor was constructed. He also stated that he did not know when
the Chabutra was constructed. Strangely though the notice (Ex.P-3) is dated
24.06.1993 it was prepared on the basis of a report (Ex.D-1) which is dated
30.06.1993 for which there is no explanation forthcoming. There is nothing
on the record to even remotely suggest that the construction was raised
within 6 months prior to the issuance of the notice under Section 195-A of
the Punjab Municipal Act.
integrity of this judgment/order.
211 RSA-2701-1995 (O&M) -4-
10. That being so, no question of law, much less any substantial
question of law, arises for determination in the present case. The appeal
being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed off.
04.07.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this judgment/order.
