FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION Vs. YADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave arise from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on July 17, 1985 and September 11, 1985 dismissing the appeals in limine.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that one Biharilal and Mahipal attempted to construct shops on the lands in question. Notices were issued to them for unauthorised construction. Thereafter, admittedly, they sold the lands to the respondents who filed suits for injunction restraining the appellant from demolishing the construction made by them on the premises that S. 208 of the Haryana Municipalities Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) requires notice to be given within six months from the date of unauthorised construction. Since, admittedly the notice was issued to Biharilal on March 18, 1982 and constructions were made sometime in February 1981, it was beyond the period of limitation. That plea found favour with the Courts below and accordingly the trial Court as well as the appellate Court decreed the suit and affirmed the same. The High Court dismissed the second appeals in limine. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

(3.) It is not disputed that the appellant is the successor-in-interest by operation of Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulation and Development) Act, 1972 (Act 4 of 1972) and succeeded to the property held by Ballabgarh Muncipality. Section 61(1)(f) of the Act provides that subject to any special reservation made or special conditions imposed by the State Government all properties of the nature mentioned in that section specifically and situated within the Municipality shall vest in and be under the control of the Committee and that all other properties which have already vested shall thereafter vest in the Committee and shall be held and applied by the Committee for the purpose of Act, i.e., to say "(f) all lands ... or other properties transferred to the Committee by the State Government or acquired by the Government by purchase or otherwise for public purpose". It would be seen that all properties as enumerated in sub-section (1) of S. 61 are possessed by the Ballabgarh Municipality. The appellant being the successor-in-interest, they stood transferred to and vested in the appellant by virtue of S. 15 of the Act,