LAL SINGH Vs. MUNICIPALITY ADAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAL Singh appellant, who is the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-appellant) filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide which the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and suit of the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 7.1.1975 the plaintiff- appellant filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee, Adampur (hereinafter referred to as the defendant-committee) from demolishing the construction raised by him over his own land shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. It was averred by the plaintiff-appellant that he had raised construction on his land in the year 1969 after getting the building plans sanctioned from the defendant-committee. In the year 1971, defendant-committee served notice upon the plaintiff-appellant to the effect that he had raised construction in violation of the building plans, but the said matter was compounded on payment of Rs. 50/- by him. Later on, a notice dated 6.9.1972 was issued by the defendant-committee to the plaintiff- appellant, alleging that he had made encroachment on the municipal land. The notice was replied by him, but the defendant-committee served another notice dated 3.2.1973 under Sections 172 and 220 of the Punjab Municipal Act. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the plaintiff-appellant to remove the alleged encroachment. The said notice is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant had made no encroachment on the municipal land by raising construction in the year 1969 as the illegality committed by him was later on compounded by the defendant-committee. By making these averments, a prayer was made by the plaintiff-appellant that the defendant-committee be restrained from demolishing his construction, which he had raised on his own land. The defendant-committee contested the suit and filed written statement to the effect that the plaintiff-appellant had encroached upon its land by raising fresh construction. It was alleged that notices were issued to the plaintiff- appellant under Sections 172 and 220 of the Act because he had made encroachment of 660 square feet of the municipal land. The said encroachment was made by him by constructing boundary wall in the year 1972 after the matter was compounded. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) SHRI Gur Rattan Pal Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned first appellate court is illegal as the same is without any basis. He submitted that once the matter was compounded the illegal encroachment, if any, was also compounded. The learned first appellate court did not record any valid reason while reversing the finding of the learned trial court. He also submitted that even if it is found that the plaintiff-appellant had illegally encroached upon some area of the municipal land, then he became owner of the same by way of adverse possession.