BIPANDEEP KAUR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to judgment dtd. 2/5/2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Civil Misc. Appeal No.95 of 2023 dtd. 20/3/2023, whereby appeal against the order dtd. 17/3/2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, on an application moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, for grant of temporary injunction, has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioners (hereinafter called as - the plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents etc. (hereinafter called as - the defendants) from interfering in peaceful possession or raising any construction or making any dump illegally and forcibly, over the plot measuring 832.55 sq. yds., comprised out of Khasra No.1018/1029, Khata No.793/851-1274/1376, situated at Taraf Saidan, H.B. No. 172, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, shown in red colour in the site plan attached and bounded as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_15_LAWS(P&H)10_2023_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that they are the recorded owners of the above mentioned plot. The defendant Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana started making false claim over the suit property and is inclined to make dump on the suit property illegally and forcibly. The plaintiffs approached the Revenue Department and moved an application for demarcation of the suit property. As per the site plan prepared by the Revenue Officers, the suit property is the ownership of the plaintiffs and it has never been acquired by the defendants or any other Authority and the plaintiffs have never been granted any compensation for the construction of road or kacha path etc. over the suit land. The Assistant Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, sought clarification from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana regarding the property in question as to whether the land in question belonged to the private party. It was certified by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Halqa Kanungo that the suit property mentioned in the report and in the site plan of demarcation, belonged to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also requested the officials of defendants that they had no right to interfere in the suit property. A legal notice was also served upon the defendants but to no avail. Defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they would make the dump over the suit property illegally and forcibly.