LAXMI DEVI Vs. KHILA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED of order dated 7.1.2015 (Annexure P -1) passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat (whereby allowing the appeal of defendants No.1 and 2, respondents No.1 and 2 herein, before removing the encroachment in the street, if any, made by defendants No.1 and 2, the lower court has been ordered to take necessary evidence to be sure that there is encroachment, in fact, existing on the municipal land) the plaintiff, petitioner herein, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of filing this civil revision petition.

(2.) IT is worth notice that the lower court vide order dated 18.1.2014 (Annexure P -6) had ordered defendant No.3 Municipal Council, respondent No.3 herein, to proceed legally for removing the encroachment in the street, if any, made by defendants No.1 and 2 and was then to submit the report to the court concerned. The contesting private defendants No.1 and 2 had gone in appeal in which the impugned order (Annexure P -1) was passed. The petitioner -plaintiff is aggrieved of this order only on the ground that the Municipal Council has power to remove encroachment on the municipal streets and calling for the evidence vide the impugned order, dilutes and dwarfs powers and stature of the Municipal Council.

(3.) IF the Appellate Court has felt that determination of existence of encroachment on the public street is the first requirement which needs to be established before ordering for removal of the same, there is nothing wrong in it. Merely because the court has asked for the evidence should not be taken that such order dwarfs the domain and powers of the respondent Municipal Council. The impugned order is well -written, elaborate and does not suffer from any factual or legal error.