25.02.2025 Balbir Kum ir Kumar v. Municipal Executive O icipal Committee, Phagwara through utive Officer, Phagwara, District Kapu rough its
Case Details
RSA-2613-1999 999 (O&M) 1 [202] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RSA-2613 Date of De 2613-1999 (O&M) of Decision : 25.02.2025 Balbir Kum ir Kumar …Appellant versus Municipal Executive O icipal Committee, Phagwara through utive Officer, Phagwara, District Kapu rough its t Kapurthala ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: vocate Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harkirat Singh Ghuman, for the respondent. man, Advocate *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] Plaintiff is in second appeal, a peal, aggrieved of judgment and decre d decree dated 24.03 24.03.1999 passed by the learned Dis ed District Judge, Kapurthala, whereb hereby, the appeal p ppeal preferred by the respondent-Mun Municipal Committee, Phagwara, ra, has been accep accepted, dismissing the suit filed by
Legal Reasoning
led by the plaintiff, reversing judgme dgment and decree decree passed by learned Sub Jud b Judge, Ist Class, Phagwara date a dated .1995. 09.06.1995 [2] Plaintiff filed a suit for perma permanent injunction, claiming himse himself to be co-ow owner of the suit land as describ escribed in the head-note of the plain e plaint. Plaintiff cl tiff claimed that defendant-Municipa nicipal Committee was threatening ning to dispossess ssess the plaintiff and he being co-ow owner in possession deserves to b es to be granted de ted decree of permanent injunction ction restraining Municipal Committe mmittee RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document from interfe ssion. interfering in his peaceful possession. RSA-2613-1999 999 (O&M) 2 [3] Suit was contested by the Com e Committee, claiming that the suit lan suit land falls in Tow in Town Planning Scheme No.8, duly , duly sanctioned by Government. Th nt. The land after after sanction of the Town Planni Planning Scheme vests in Municip unicipal Committee mittee and the plaintiff has no righ o right to claim decree of permane rmanent ction. injunction. [4] Suit filed by the plaintiff was ff was put to trial by the Court of fir of first instance, fr nce, framing following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is c PP ff is co-owner of the suit plot? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is iff is entitled to permanent injunctio nction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not m not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has ff has no locus standi? OPD 5. Relief. ” [5] Learned Trial Court while retu ile returning findings on Issue Nos.1 os.1 & 2 held tha ld that it stands proved on record t cord that the plaintiff is co-owner wner in possession ession of the suit property. Even if en if the stand taken by the defenda fendant regarding l ding land falling within the Town Pla wn Planning Scheme is to be believe elieved, the plaintiff ntiff needs to be dispossessed follow following due course of law. [6] [7] Municipal Committee, Phagwa hagwara, preferred appeal. Learned Lower Appellate Cou te Court reversed findings recorded b rded by the learned earned Trial Court on Issue Nos.1 & 2 .1 & 2, holding that the land in dispu dispute having bee g been incorporated in the Town P wn Planning Scheme sanctioned vid ed vide order dated r dated 31.05.1973. Sale deeds propou ropounded by the plaintiff pertaining ining to month of D h of December, 1992 do not legaliz legalize his possession. Land havin having already ves dy vested in the Municipal Committe mmittee on sanction of Town Plannin lanning RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Scheme, th me, the plaintiff has no right to mainta nction. maintain suit for permanent injunction. RSA-2613-1999 999 (O&M) 3 [8] Learned counsel for the plain plaintiff–appellant while assailing th ling the impugned o gned order refers to statement made b ade by DW-1/Rakesh Kumar to subm submit that the pos possession of the plaintiff having aving been admitted. The same havin having been so rep so reported in the report of Local Com al Commissioner also. The suit filed b filed by the plaintif laintiff, seeking decree of permanen manent injunction ought to have bee ve been decreed. H ed. He thus, submits that the learned earned Lower Appellate Court wrong wrongly reversed th sed the findings recorded by the learn e learned Trial Court. Once possessio ssession of the plai e plaintiff stands proved, the simplic simplicitor suit filed seeking decree o ecree of permanent anent injunction ought to have bee e been decreed. He thus, prays fo s for maintaining taining the judgment and decree pa ree passed by the Court of the fir first instance. [9] Per contra, counsel for the or the respondent-defendant refers efers to Exhibit D bit D-1, order passed by the Governm overnment sanctioning Town Plannin lanning Scheme. me. He submits that after the afor oresaid order was passed and th and the Scheme w me was sanctioned, unconstructed ucted land vested in the Municip unicipal Authority a ority as per mandate of Section 192 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act an Act and the plaintif laintiff had no right to possess the sa the same on the strength of sale deed le deeds executed in in his favour in the month of Dece f December, 1992. [10] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon lly gone through the gh the records of the case. [11] Before adverting to the meri merits of the case, it will be apt e apt to peruse Sec se Section 192 of the Punjab Munic Municipal Act, 1911, which reads a reads as under:- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “[192. Building scheme.- (1) The red The committee may, and if so required by the 2 [(1)Deputy Commissioner] ate ner] shall, within six months of the date of such requisition, draw up a bui d a building scheme for built areas, and a RSA-2613-1999 999 (O&M) 4 town planning scheme for unbuil her nbuilt areas, which may among other things provide for the following ma matters, namely :- (a) the restriction of the ngs f the erection or re-erection of buildings or any class of build the buildings in the whole or any part of the municipality, and of d of the use to which they may be put; (b) the prescription of a oth of a building line on either side or both sides of any street ex et existing or proposed; and (c) the amount of land be and in such unbuilt area which shall be transferred to the ses the committee for public purposes including use as pub her public streets by owners of land either on payment of compe hat ompensation or otherwise, provided that the total amount s 3 nt so transferred shall not exceed 3 [thirty-five per cen red cent,] and the amount transferred without payment sh per t shall not exceed 4 [twentyfive per cent], of any one ow uilt e owner’s land within 5 [such unbuilt area.] (2) When a scheme has been dr - n drawn up under the provisions of sub- section (1) the committee shall giv nd l give public notice of such scheme and shall at the same time intimate a da the a date not less than thirty days from the date of such notice by which any p tee ny person may submit to the committee in writing any objection or sugge me uggestion with regard to such scheme which he may wish to make. (3) The committee shall consi ion onsider every objection or suggestion with regard to the scheme which m ted h may be received by the date estimated under the provisions of sub-section in ctions (2) and may modify the scheme in consequence of any such objecti hen jection or suggestion and shall then forward such scheme as originally e 6 nally drawn up or as modified to the 6 [Deputy Commissioner] who may the may, if he thinks fit, return it to the committee for reconsideration and te; and resubmission by a specified date; and the 7 [Deputy Commissioner] s ed, er] shall submit the plans as forwarded, or as resubmitted, as the case may te] may be, with his opinion to the [State] Government, who may sanction suc ion n such scheme or may refuse to sanction it, or may return it to the co nd e committee for reconsideration and resubmission by a specified date. (4) If a committee fails to sub of submit a scheme within six months of being required to do so under sub t a r sub-section (1) or fails to resubmit a scheme by a specified date, when r ion hen required to do so under sub-section (3) or resubmits a scheme whic te] which is not approved by the [State] Government, the 8 [Deputy Comm of ommissioner] may draw up a scheme of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2613-1999 999 (O&M) 5 which public notice shall be given ion iven by notification and by publication within the municipality together by her with an intimation of the date by which any person may submit in wr er] in writing to the [Deputy Commissioner] any objection or suggestion wh nd which he may wish to make, and the[Deputy Commissioner] shall f ch all forward with his opinion any such objection or suggestion to the [S te] e [State] Government and the [State] Government may sanction such or uch scheme as originally notified or modified in consequence of any su the ny such objection or suggestion, as the [State] Government may think fit; a ch fit; and the cost of such scheme or such portion of the cost as the [State] be ate] Government may deem fit shall be nd. defrayed from the municipal fund. (5) When sanctioning a scheme the ose the State Government may impose conditions for the submission of pe of of periodical reports on the progress of the scheme to the Deputy Commis nt, missioner or to the State Government, and for the inspection and super ate upervision of the scheme by the State Government. [12] In the present case, sanction o ction of Town Planning Scheme stand e stands proved vide ed vide Exhibit D-1. In terms of draw f drawing TP8, suit land falls within th ithin the sanctioned tioned plan. Thus, learned Lower App er Appellate Court rightly held that aft hat after Planning S ning Scheme was sanctioned by Loca ocal Authority way back in the ye the year 1976, plain , plaintiff had no right to be in possess ossession of the same on the strength o ength of sale deeds e deeds executed in the year 1992. [13] Finding no merits in the prese present appeal, the same is ordered dered to be dismisse smissed. [14] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands disposed o sed off. .2025 25.02.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No