MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GURGAON Vs. SARIKA SINGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents -plaintiffs filed suit (civil suit No.675 of 2002) seeking the relief of injunction as follows: -

(2.) THE case of the respondents -plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit property bearing plot No.160 and 161 was purchased by respondents - plaintiffs No.20 and 21 vide registered sale deeds dated 19.03.1990 and 03.09.1998. Under a collaboration, agreement with respondent -plaintiffs No.20 and 21, M/s Cityqueen Express Travels and Finance Services Private Limited (respondent -plaintiff No.22) agreed to develop a commercial complex and building plans were got sanctioned from appellant -defendant vide order dated 29.09.1998. There was some deviation and some changes from the approved site plans and a notice was served on respondentsplaintiffs No.20 and 21 that the construction was not being raised in conformity with the sanctioned site plans. On receipt of notice, reply was submitted and on paying the composition fee and penalty, revised site plan was submitted which was sanctioned on 26.02.1999. Thereafter, the construction over the suit property was raised. After completion of construction, the shops were sold to the other plaintiffs, who have been paying house tax, sales tax etc. Moreover, three years have elapsed after the construction. A notice bearing No.6368 dated 18.10.2002 was issued under Sections 208 and 209 of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'), vide which they have been called upon to alter the building in question as per sanctioned site plan dated 26.02.1999. Terming the notice as illegal, respondents -plaintiffs filed the present suit with the plea that after the expiry of more than six months of completion of building, appellant -defendant had no authority to issue them notice and the same was unauthorized and illegal.

(3.) IN the written statement, appellant -defendant contested the claim made by the respondents -plaintiffs inter -alia pleading that after the sanction of the revised site plan, plaintiffs No.20 and 21 have raised illegal construction by way of addition and alteration and vide impugned notice, they were asked to alter the building as per site plan dated 26.02.1999. The construction raised by respondents -plaintiffs No.20 and 21 was not inconformity with the sanctioned plan dated 26.02.1999.