MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SUBHASH CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM -3468 -C -2012

(2.) THE defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of plot measuring 92 sq. yards in which the defendants have no right, title or interest and the entry in the municipal record showing the land in dispute in the name of Municipal Council, Nabha, is totally illegal and liable to be corrected by incorporating the name of the plaintiff and prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants for sanctioning the proposed site plan applied by the plaintiff for which he had already deposited requisite fee on 14.02.2005 which has been kept by them in abeyance, without sanctioning and also prayed for permanent injunction to restrain them in his peaceful possession.

(3.) IN the written statement, it was denied that the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property and challenged that the mutation is forged, vague and result of manipulation in connivance with the revenue authorities. It was further averred that the defendants are the owners of the suit property measuring 0 kanal 3 marlas on which the plaintiff had made encroachment and had also constructed a shop without getting any site plan sanctioned which is mandatory in view of Section 198 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (here -in -after referred to as the "Act"). The plaintiff had applied for sanctioning of site plan on 20.01.2005 which could have been sanctioned within 60 days up to 19.03.2005, but it was under process and when it came to the notice of the defendants that the suit property belongs to the Municipal Council, notice under Section 195 -A of the Act dated 18.02.2005 was issued, but the plaintiff had already erected the construction on the suit property which is liable to be demolished and when notice under Section 195 -A of the Act was sent to the plaintiff, the application for sanctioning of the site plan automatically stands rejected. It was also alleged that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as no notice under Section 49 of the Act was served before filing of the suit and the sale deed in the hands of the plaintiff cannot be relied upon.