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
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035183
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
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035183
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
