COUNCIL, RAJPURA v. HARMEET SINGH & Ors.

Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate with Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate for the appellant (through hybrid mode). (through hybrid mode). HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA **** By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgments and decrees dated 15.01.2020 and 26.05.2025 passed by the and decrees dated 15.01.2020 and 26.05.2025 passed by the dated 15.01.2020 and 26.05.2025 passed by the Courts below whereby, the appellants have been directed to pay Courts below whereby, the appellants have been directed to pay Courts below whereby, the appellants have been directed to pay Courts below whereby, the appellants have been directed to pay plaintiffs on account of illegal damages in favour of respondents-plaintiffs on account of illegal plaintiffs on account of illegal damages in favour of respondents demolition of shops. demolition of shops.

2. Briefly stating, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a sui Briefly stating, the respondents t for award plaintiffs filed a suit for award of damages against the appellants. It was submitted that the subject of damages against the appellants. It was submitted that the subject of damages against the appellants. It was submitted that the subject of damages against the appellants. It was submitted that the subject property measuring 12 marlas comprising khewat no.414 Khasra property measuring 12 marlas comprising khewat no.414 Khasra property measuring 12 marlas comprising khewat no.414 Khasra property measuring 12 marlas comprising khewat no.414 Khasra 8) situated at Bharat Colony, No.323/33/9/1 (0-3), 323/7 (0-1), 323/8 (0-8) situated at Bharat Colony, 8) situated at Bharat Colony, No.323/33/9/1 (0 No.1 was owned by the Rajpura now abutting the National Highway No.1 was owned by the Rajpura now abutting the National Highway Rajpura now abutting the National Highway deceased-father of the respondents plaintiffs who expired on 14.09.1986 father of the respondents-plaintiffs who expired on 14.09.1986 plaintiffs who expired on 14.09.1986 and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the respondents-plaintiff s. plaintiffs. s. It was submitted It was submitted It was submitted that during his that during his that during his lifetime, lifetime, lifetime, deceased-Mohinder Singh const ructed 8 shops over the subject property Mohinder Singh constructed 8 shops over the subject property ructed 8 shops over the subject property 95 and also obtained electricity connection against between 1984-95 and also obtained electricity connection against 95 and also obtained electricity connection against between 1984 16 No.92/16969 and security amount deposited vide receipt No.BA-16 No.92/16969 and security amount deposited vide receipt No.BA security amount deposited vide receipt No.BA 93/16969. Thereafter, the Municipal Council Rajpura issued summons to 93/16969. Thereafter, the Municipal Council Rajpura issued summons to 93/16969. Thereafter, the Municipal Council Rajpura issued summons to 93/16969. Thereafter, the Municipal Council Rajpura issued summons to TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.18 09:41 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RSA-3677-2025 (O&M) the respondents-plaintiffs in terms of Section 80(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 directing them to deposit house tax to the tune of Rs.12,309.76/-. The said amount was deposited by the respondents- plaintiffs. Later on 28.05.2008, the respondents-plaintiffs received 3 notices bearing Nos.178, 179 and 180 from Municipal Council, Rajpura for removing the construction raised by their father-deceased Mohinder Singh in the year 1984. A reply to the said notice was given by the plaintiffs vide receipt No.1098 dated 09.06.2008. Again a letter bearing No.3166 dated 19.06.2012 was received by the plaintiffs from the Municipal Council, Rajpura. Though, the appellant was duly informed about the existence of construction much prior to 1993-94, however, to the utter surprise of the plaintiffs, the same was demolished by the appellant without following the due process of law. Hence, the present appeal.

3. In response, a written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant-defendant No.1 while submitting that the demolition was carried out under the instructions of respondent No.3-defendant No.2. It was further submitted that construction was raised by the deceased father of plaintiffs without sanctioning of site plan/building plan and mere fact that the house tax was deposited by the plaintiffs before defendant No.1 was not to be treated as approval of the illegal construction. It was thus, submitted that there was no illegality committed by the appellant- defendant No.1. It was also denied that violation committed by the plaintiffs about raising of construction of shops was prior to 1985, as such, the suit in hand was liable to be dismissed. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2022 decreed the suit partly in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 while holding that the shops were constructed TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.18 09:41 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RSA-3677-2025 (O&M) over the subject property in the year 1984 and as such, the appellant- defendant No.1 had no authority to serve notice dated 19.06.2012 to the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 and 2 by invoking the provisions of PUDA Act, 1995 and as such the demolition carried out by the appellant was unlawful. The relevant paragraph No.31 i.e. the relief clause granted by the learned trail Court is extracted hereunder:- “On the basis of above made discussion, suit of the plaintiffs succeeds partly and stands partly decreed with proportionate costs to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lacs only) for demolition of building and Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac only) for mental agony suffered due to the act of defendant Nos. (total Rs.5,00,000/-) (Five lacs only) as damages from defendant No.2 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 27.7.2012 till its actual realization. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, Rajpura.”

4. Aggrieved thereof, two separate appeals came to be preferred. One at the instance of plaintiff seeking enhancement of damages whereas, the other one by the appellant for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The Civil appeal No.45 dated 05.11.2020 titled as “Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rajpura Vs. Harmeet Singh and Others” was at the instance of appellant herein being aggrieved of award of damages in favour of plaintiffs. The same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

26.05.2025 and the present appeal arises out of the same.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I am unable find substance submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

6. In the present case, it has been concurrently recorded by both the Courts below that the shops in question were raised over the subject property by the deceased-father of the plaintiffs namely, Mohinder TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.18 09:41 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RSA-3677-2025 (O&M) Singh in the year 1984-85. Even on 09.06.1996 vide demand notice Ex.P-18, the plaintiffs were asked to pay house tax and the same was deposited. From a perusal of Ex.P-3 (record) produced by PW-2 who is the official of defendant No.2, it has been established that demand pertaining to the house tax was even relating to the year 1993-94 and Ex.P-3/1 being the original notice No.674 was also produced on record which pertained to the house tax concerning the shops. As such, from the documentary evidence available on record, it has nowhere been established that the shops in question were existing over the subject property even before 1995. In such circumstances, the notice No.3166 dated 19.06.2012 (Ex.P-1) issued by the appellant to respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs having invoked the provisions of PUDA Act, 1995 was wholly illegal and uncalled for and accordingly, no demolition could have been carried out in terms thereof.

7. In such circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, once the demolition of the shops in question existing over the subject land for the past almost 18 years was carried out by the appellants without following procedure established by law, the same was wholly uncalled for and as such, the judgments passed by the Courts below being based on proper appreciation and material evidence available on record calls for no interference. The appeal in hand being devoid of merits is thus dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

30.03.2026 Tejwinder (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.18 09:41 I agree to specified portions of this document