Om Prakash & Ors. v. Municipal Board, Bhadra & Ors.

Order

: 9th November 2010. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Bheem Arora, for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for the respondents. <><><> BY THE COURT: This writ petition is directed against the order dated

19.05.2009 (Annex.7) passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhadra in Civil Appeal No. 6/2005 whereby the learned Appellate Court set aside the order issuing temporary injunction as passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadra in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/2005. The plaintiffs-petitioners have filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction stating the grievance against interference by the defendants in their possession over 13 shops located in Ward No. 15 within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board,

Bhadra. The plaintiffs-petitioners alleged that they were the tenants in the shops in question let by one Mahila Bal Kalyan Kendra and were occupying the premises as given to them by the landlord but then, the defendants were seeking to interfere in their possession for extraneous reasons and considerations. The plaintiffs-petitioners also moved an application for temporary injunction with the prayer that the defendants be 2 restrained from interfering in their possession during the pendency of the suit. The defendants asserted before the learned Trial Court that the plaintiffs have encroached over a part of the road in front of the shops given to them; and such an encroachment on the road was required to be removed. On the application for temporary injunction moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners, the learned Trial Court, after considering the rival submissions and after examining the record of the case, observed in relation to prima facie case that the plaintiffs were in possession of the shops in question as tenants and when the landlord was not taking steps for protection of the shops it was rather indicative of the landlord's ill-intent towards the tenants. On the questions of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the learned Trial Court observed that in case of the shops being demolished, the plaintiffs shall suffer serious inconvenience whereas the road was available at the site with sufficient width and the Municipal Board had constructed a divider and even the drainage line while being aware of the availability of sufficient road width and space. The learned Trial Court, however, found it just and proper that the plaintiffs should remove 'chhajjas' and 'pedis' extending beyond the shops. The learned Trial Court said,- “च(cid:2) (cid:3)क(cid:5) व(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)द(cid:11)त (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न(cid:15) (cid:5)(cid:16) बत(cid:18)र क(cid:5)र(cid:9)य(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:9)र आध(cid:23)पतय उपय(cid:27)ग उपभ(cid:27)ग प(cid:9)र गण (cid:5)(cid:9) प(cid:9)य(cid:9) गय(cid:9) ह#, ऐस& स(रतत म+ यद(cid:11) इस (-(cid:16)ज पर अप(cid:9)र गण (cid:5)(cid:16) द(cid:9)र(cid:9) अततकमण ह-(cid:9)न(cid:16) (cid:5)2 आड म+ व(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)द(cid:11)त (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न(cid:15) म+ त(cid:27)ड फ(cid:27)ड (cid:5)2 ज(cid:9)त& ह#, त(cid:27) इसस(cid:16) सबस(cid:16) अध(cid:23)(cid:5) अप(cid:2)ण य कतत क(cid:5)र(cid:9)य(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:9)र प(cid:9)र गण (cid:5)(cid:27) ह(cid:27)ग&, यदवप (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न 3 (cid:5)(cid:16) ((cid:8)(cid:9)म& (cid:5)(cid:27) इसस(cid:16) (cid:5)(cid:27)ई अप(cid:2)ण य कतत ह(cid:27)न(cid:9) नह8(cid:3) प(cid:9)ई गई ह#, परनत(cid:13) यह म(cid:9)मल(cid:9) क(cid:5)र(cid:9)य(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:9)र(cid:15) (cid:5)(cid:16) द(cid:9)र(cid:9) प(cid:16)श क(cid:5)य(cid:9) गय(cid:9) ह# अत: उनह8(cid:3) (cid:5)2 स&म(cid:9) त(cid:5) और उनह8(cid:3) (cid:5)(cid:16) ह(cid:5) (cid:5)2 स&म(cid:9) त(cid:5) इस म(cid:9)मल(cid:16) (cid:5)(cid:27) (cid:11)(cid:16)ख(cid:9) ज(cid:9) रह(cid:9) ह# और (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न+ त(cid:27)ड(cid:16) ज(cid:9)न(cid:16) पर उनह+ अतयध(cid:23)(cid:5) अस(cid:13)व(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:9) (cid:5)(cid:9) स(cid:9)मन(cid:9) (cid:5)रन(cid:9) पड(cid:16)ग(cid:9) जबक(cid:5) प(cid:13)र(cid:9)न& बन& ह(cid:13)ई म(cid:18)ज(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:9) (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न+ बन& रहन(cid:16) स(cid:16) उन(cid:5)(cid:16) आग(cid:16) नगरप(cid:9)लल(cid:5)(cid:9) (cid:5)2 न(cid:9)ल8 (cid:8) सड(cid:5) म(cid:18)ज(cid:2)(cid:11) ह(cid:27)न(cid:16) स(cid:16) आ(cid:8)(cid:9)गमन पय(cid:9)?प उपलब(cid:23) ह(cid:27)न(cid:16) स(cid:16) ज(cid:27) क(cid:5) अनय (र(cid:9)न(cid:15) स(cid:16) इतन(cid:9) अध(cid:23)(cid:5) च(cid:18)ड(cid:9) आ(cid:8)(cid:9)गमन उपलब(cid:23) ह# क(cid:5) नगरप(cid:9)लल(cid:5)(cid:9) (cid:5)(cid:27) सड(cid:5) (cid:5)(cid:9) मधय भ(cid:9)ग धचसनहत क(cid:5)य(cid:9) ज(cid:9)न(cid:9) पड(cid:9) और डD(cid:8)(cid:9)ईDर बन(cid:9)न(cid:9) पD(cid:9) । अत: डD(cid:8)(cid:9)ईDर बन(cid:9)य(cid:16) (cid:8) न(cid:9)ल8 तनम(cid:9)?ण (cid:5)(cid:16) समय ज(cid:27) म(cid:9)ग? आ(cid:8)(cid:9)गमन (cid:5)(cid:16) ललए नगरप(cid:9)लल(cid:5)(cid:9) (cid:5)2 ज(cid:9)न(cid:5)(cid:9)र8 म+ न(cid:9)ल8 (cid:8) सड(cid:5) बन(cid:9)त(cid:16) समय सड(cid:5) (cid:5)2 च(cid:18)ड(cid:9)ई (cid:8) स(cid:13)व(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:9) जन(cid:5) आ(cid:8)(cid:9)गमन (cid:5)2 म(cid:9)ग? उपलब(cid:23)त(cid:9) (cid:5)2 स(रतत ज(cid:9)त ह(cid:27)न(cid:16) और उस& अन(cid:13)स(cid:9)र सड(cid:5) (cid:8) न(cid:9)ल8 तनम(cid:9)?ण (cid:5)2 ज(cid:9) च(cid:13)(cid:5)2 ह(cid:27)न(cid:16) (cid:5)(cid:16) उपर(cid:9)(cid:3)त उस(cid:5)(cid:16) पश(cid:9)त (cid:5)(cid:27)ई अततकमण क(cid:5)य(cid:9) गय(cid:9) ह(cid:27), ऐस(cid:9) यदवप अप(cid:9)र गण न(cid:16) (cid:5)रन नह8(cid:3) क(cid:5)य(cid:9) ह#, परनत(cid:13) ररप(cid:27)-? (cid:5)लमशर (cid:5)(cid:16) नकश(cid:9) (cid:8) र(cid:3)ग&न फ(cid:27)-(cid:27) (cid:5)(cid:16) अ(cid:8)ल(cid:27)(cid:5)न स(cid:16) म(cid:18)ज(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:9) (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न(cid:15) (cid:5)(cid:16) आग(cid:16) क(cid:5)र(cid:9)य(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:9)र(cid:15) द(cid:9)र(cid:9) छजज(cid:16) लग(cid:9)य(cid:16) गय(cid:16) ह(cid:27)न(cid:9) (पष (cid:11)लश?त ह#, अत: यद(cid:11) इन छजज(cid:15) (cid:5)(cid:27) ह-(cid:9) द(cid:11)य(cid:9) ज(cid:9)त(cid:9) ह#, त(cid:27) आ(cid:8)(cid:9)गमन (cid:5)(cid:9) म(cid:9)ग? अध(cid:23)(cid:5) च(cid:18)ड(cid:9) (cid:11)लश?त ह(cid:27)ग(cid:9) और इसस(cid:16) प(cid:9)र गण (cid:5)(cid:27) भ& क(cid:5)स& प(cid:5)(cid:9)र (cid:5)2 अप(cid:2)ण य कतत (cid:8) अस(cid:13)व(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:9) ह(cid:27)न(cid:9) नह8(cid:3) (cid:5)ह(cid:9) ज(cid:9) स(cid:5)त(cid:9), अत: अप(cid:2)ण य कतत (cid:8) स(cid:13)व(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:9) सनत(cid:13)लन (cid:5)(cid:16) बबन(cid:11)(cid:2) भ& आ(cid:3)लश(cid:5) रप स(cid:16) प(cid:9)र गण (cid:5)(cid:16) पक म+ तनण त क(cid:5)य(cid:16) ज(cid:9)त(cid:16) हQ ।" The learned Trial Court, accordingly, proceeded to issue temporary injunction to the extent that during the pendency of the suit the existing pucca construction shall not be interfered with but directed the plaintiffs-petitioners to remove the tin- sheds and other intrusions, if on the road side, within three days. The learned Trial Court issued temporary injunction in the following terms:- “पररण(cid:9)म((cid:8)रप प(cid:9)र गण स(cid:3). 1 स(cid:16) 13 द(cid:9)र(cid:9) प(त(cid:13)त अ(र(cid:9)ई तनष(cid:16)(cid:23)(cid:9)ज(cid:9) आ(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:11)न पत व(cid:8)रद अप(cid:9)र गण स(cid:3). 1 स(cid:16) 3 अनतग?त आ(cid:11)(cid:16)श 39 तनयम 1 (cid:8) 2 स&.प&.स&. प(cid:9)र गण (cid:5)(cid:16) पक म+ परम दषय(cid:9) म(cid:9)मल(cid:9), अप(cid:2)ण य कतत ए(cid:8)(cid:3) स(cid:13)व(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:9) सनत(cid:13)लन (cid:5)(cid:16) बबन(cid:11)(cid:2) आ(cid:3)लश(cid:5) रप स(cid:16) स(cid:9)बबत प(cid:9)य(cid:16) ज(cid:9)न(cid:16) स(cid:16) आ(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:11)न आ(cid:3)लश(cid:5) रप स(cid:16) ((cid:8)&(cid:5)(cid:9)र क(cid:5)य(cid:9) ज(cid:9)त(cid:9) ह# । अप(cid:9)र गण स(cid:3). 1 स(cid:16) 3 (cid:5)(cid:27) जररय(cid:16) अ(र(cid:9)ई तनष(cid:16)(cid:23)(cid:9)ज(cid:9) प(cid:9)बन(cid:11) क(cid:5)य(cid:9) ज(cid:9)त(cid:9) ह# क(cid:5) त(cid:9)फ# सल(cid:9) (cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:9) व(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)द(cid:11)त (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न(cid:15) (cid:5)2 म(cid:18)ज(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:9) स(रतत; प(cid:13)खत(cid:9) तनम(cid:9)?ण (cid:5)2 स&म(cid:9) त(cid:5) बन(cid:9)य(cid:16) रख& ज(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:16); "(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न(cid:15) (cid:5)(cid:16) तनम(cid:9)?ण म+" , त(cid:27)डफ(cid:27)ड (cid:5)2 (cid:5)(cid:9)य?(cid:8)(cid:9)ह8 न(cid:9) (cid:5)र(cid:16) । प(cid:9)र गण (cid:5)(cid:27) तन(cid:11)Wश द(cid:11)य(cid:9) ज(cid:9)त(cid:9) ह# क(cid:5) (cid:8)(cid:16) अपन& (cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)न(cid:15) (cid:5)(cid:16) आग(cid:16) लग(cid:9)य(cid:16) ह(cid:13)ए -8न श#D (छजज(cid:16)) तर(cid:9) प#ड& (यद(cid:11) सड(cid:5) पर ह#) त(cid:27) त&न द(cid:11)न (cid:5)(cid:16) अन(cid:11)र-अन(cid:11)र ((cid:8)य(cid:3) ह-(cid:9) ल(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:16) तर(cid:9) प(cid:9)लन(cid:9) 4 ररप(cid:27)-? नय(cid:9)य(cid:9)लय म+ प(cid:16)श (cid:5)र(cid:16) अनयर(cid:9) अप(cid:9)र गण (cid:5)(cid:27) ह-(cid:8)(cid:9)न(cid:16) (cid:5)(cid:9) आ(cid:11)(cid:16)श द(cid:11)य(cid:9) ज(cid:9) स(cid:5)(cid:16) ग(cid:9), सजस(cid:5)(cid:16) हजW खचW (cid:5)(cid:16) प(cid:9)र गण ((cid:8)य(cid:3) सजमम(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:9)र ह(cid:15)ग(cid:16) ।" The learned Appellate Court, however, did not agree with the learned Trial Court and proceeded to accept the appeals filed by the defendants (Nos. 6/2005 and 9/2005) by the common order dated 19.05.2009. While setting aside the order for temporary injunction, the learned Appellate Court observed that in the disputed shops, the construction to the extent of 167 x 15 feet was on the patta land but the remaining construction towards the southern side (i.e., the road side) was that of encroachment and the Municipal Board was entitled to remove the same. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs-petitioners have filed this writ petition wherein this Court issued notices on 26.05.2009 for final disposal at this stage and directed status quo regarding suit property to be maintained. The interim order granted on

26.05.2009 has hitherto continued; and the matter has been placed on Board today for final disposal. It has been informed during the course of submissions that in the aforesaid civil suit filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners, two of the witnesses have been examined but now the matter is pending for consideration of some interlocutory applications moved by the parties. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Appellate Court has unnecessarily interfered with 5 the discretionary temporary injunction order that was passed by the learned Trial Court after examining the record. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has proceeded on irrelevant considerations and has ignored the material on record while passing the impugned order dated 19.05.2009. It is also sought to be urged that the learned Appellate Judge for no reason proceeded to inspect the site himself and then, proceeded to draw inferences on the basis of such personal observations but while ignoring the relevant aspects of the position obtainable at the site. It is submitted that there was no reason for interference in the discretionary order passed by the learned Trial Court and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the encroachment on road cannot be countenanced and has always been viewed with disfavour by the Courts. It is contended that fact of the plaintiffs-petitioners being the encroachers on the road and is rather highlighted by the documents produced by themselves, including the title document of the original landlord dated 10.12.1973. It is submitted that the defendant-respondent Municipal Board does not intend to interfere with the shops in question to the extent covered by the said title document but then, any possession beyond such title land is that of encroachment on the public road; and hence, is required to be removed. It is also submitted that the Appellate Court has examined the 6 matter in thorough detail and has recorded the precise findings with reference to the material available on record. The learned counsel for the defendants-respondents also made a prayer in the alternative that the Trial Court may be directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. During the course of submissions, one of the aspects that came up for consideration had been about maintaining of the building line and the question naturally cropped up if the possession of the plaintiffs-petitioners is disturbing the existing building line? The learned counsel for the respondents was posed the specific question if there has been any finding to that effect by the Appellate Court to which, after going through the entire order passed by the Appellate Court, the learned counsel could only submit that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court, when read as a whole, are to the effect that the plaintiffs-petitioners are encroachers on the road and hence, such an encroachment is required to be removed. As the matter is being considered only on the prayer for interim relief made by the plaintiffs-petitioners that resulted in granting of temporary injunction by the Trial Court but reversal of the same by the Appellate Court, this Court would not be making any final comments on the merits nor any observations herein shall be considered as any finding on the merits of the case but then, so far the order passed by the Appellate Court is concerned, this Court is unable to approve the same for more than one reason. 7 In the first place, it is noticed that the Trial Court had taken into consideration the material available on record including the Commissioner's Report and the other documents filed by the parties and thereafter found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners and further found that the road was available in entire width all through and even a Nali was existing in front of the shops in question. In the totality of the circumstances, the learned Trial Court found that the Chhajjas and other projections/intrusions on the road were definitely required to be removed but found it just and proper that the existing construction be not disturbed during the pendency of the suit. The order as passed by the Trial Court had been a discretionary one for preservation of the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. The Appellate Court could not have reversed the same by considering the matter as if dealing on the original side and could not have substituted the discretion of the Trial Court unless such exercise of discretion was shown to be arbitrary or capricious or against sound judicial principles. From the reading of the entire order as passed by the Appellate Court, it is difficult to make out that the Appellate Court kept in view the parameters of the jurisdiction being exercised by it. Secondly, in the prima facie consideration of the present matter, it does not appear that the plaintiffs-petitioners have suddenly encroached over the road and came ahead, disturbing the building line. On the contrary, in the plan 8 presented by the defendants themselves, the road width in front of the petitioners' shops is stated to be about 38 feet whereas the same road, towards the western side, has been shown 34 feet in width. Hence, prima facie, it is difficult to find that the petitioners have encroached over the road. As to what is the effect of the document dated

10.12.1973 filed by the plaintiffs shall be a matter of consideration at the time of final decision of the suit, but at the stage of grant of temporary injunction, such possession of the petitioners with pucca constructions cannot be permitted to be removed particularly when it is difficult to find that the petitioners have made encroachment on the road. The temporary injunction as issued by the Trial Court, in the given fact situation, called for no interference. Thirdly, it is also noticed that the effect of the temporary injunction issued by the Trial Court as back as on 11.03.2005 has continued for all this time, particularly with the directions of this Court for maintaining status quo, as noticed hereinbefore. It does not appear equitable that the position obtainable at present be disturbed during the pendency of the suit by removal of the existing structures. In view of the discussion foregoing, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and while setting aside the impugned order dated 19.05.2009, the order passed by the Trial Court on 11.03.2005 deserves to be restored. 9 It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners that they have removed the Chhajjas etc. as contemplated and have carried out full compliance of the order passed by the Trial Court. It shall be permissible for the defendants- respondents to point out before the Trial Court if there be any want of proper compliance of the order on the part of the plaintiffs-petitioners. In the interest of justice, it is also considered proper and hence directed that during the pendency of the suit, status quo regarding the construction and possession in the shops in question shall be maintained by all the parties and it shall not be permissible for the petitioners-plaintiffs to create any kind of third party right or interest in the shops in question. So far the progress of the trial is concerned, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that the Trial Court may proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible curbing against unnecessary delay. Accordingly and as a result of the discussion aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated; the impugned order dated 19.05.2009 is set aside and that of the Trial Court dated 11.03.2005 is restored with the observations and requirements indicated supra. No costs. /Mohan/ (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. 10