DAMYANTI TOMER Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 1.9.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal as well as order dated 1.5.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal vide which the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed. Precisely the facts of the case are that the petitionerplaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on the ground that she is in actual physical possession of plots No. 6,8 and 10 situated near DAV School, Ram Nagar, Karnal since 1995. She had raised the construction of a Dairy over the plot after getting the site plan sanctioned from the office of the respondent- MC, Karnal. She had approached the office of the respondent for transferring the ownership of the plots in question in her name on reserve price and not to get the same vacated, but no action has been taken by the respondent. Rather on the basis of resolution No.23 the suit plot has been sold at reserve price to one Balbir Singh. She moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal for cancellation of the Resolution passed in favour of Balbir Singh. Also in the suit filed by her, she moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code for restraining the respondents from dispossessing her from the suit land.

(2.) In the written statement, respondent-MC, Karnal submitted that the plots/ land belongs to MC, Karnal and it was the owner in actual and physical possession of the same. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Karnal vide order dated 1.5.2015 and aggrieved against the said order, plaintiff-petitioner filed an appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 1.9.2015.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below committed grave illegality by dismissing her application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by ignoring the fact that plaintiff-petitioner is in settled possession of the suit land since 1995. She had deposited the penalty amount of Rs.1000/- imposed upon her and had also placed on record the site plant got sanctioned by her from the Municipal Corporation, Karnal, which were admitted by the said respondent. Learned counsel asserted that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly and the possession can be taken only in due process of law. The petitioner is entitled to an injunctive order under the law for protection of her possession. To support his contention, he relied upon Rame Gowda (D) by LRs vs. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and anr, 2004 1 RCR(Civ) 519 and Puran and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007 3 RCR(Civ) 3 .