MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GURUGRAM Vs. DUSHYANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present order would dispose of two cases, the first being CR-1469-2025 filed by the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram (defendant No.l in the main suit) in which challenge is to the order dtd. 9/1/2025 passed by the Executing Court in Execution No.98 of 2020 titled as "Dushyant Kumar Vs. Municipal Committee, Gurugram and others", whereby the objections filed by the petitioner/defendant No.l have been dismissed. Second case is Review Application No. 14 of 2025 filed in Rs.A No.2290 of 2013 by the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram (defendant No.l) in which the prayer is for review of judgment and order dtd. 22/8/2019 (Annexure A-l) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.2290 of 2013. In the said review application, application bearing CM-2650-C-2025 has been filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act read with Sec. 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 1998 days in filing the review application and another application bearing CM-2651-C-2025 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to place on record additional evidence as Annexures A-7 to A-l 1.

(2.) Brief and undisputed facts in the present case are that respondent No.l-Dushyant Kumar son of Des Raj (hereinafter to be referred as "the plaintiff') had filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction against the Municipal Council, Gurgaon (review applicant/petitioner/defendant No.l), Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon and State of Haryana, who were impleaded as defendant Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The said suit was filed on the averments that one Raja Rati Ram son of Lala Munshi Lal Jain was owner of land comprised in khasra Nos.48, 49, 51, 52, 56 and 57 situated in the revenue estate of Hidyatpur Chawani, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and that he had sold a plot measuring 250 square yards out of the said land to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dtd. 7/12/1964 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1000.00 and that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff and since its purchase, the plaintiff was owner in possession of the same. It was further the case of the plaintiff that in the year 2002, he had got prepared a building site plan in conformity with law and bye laws and had requested the officials of defendant No.l to sanction the said building site plan, however, no action was taken by defendant No.l even though they were bound to sanction the building plan; and that vide order dtd. 19/8/2002, defendant No.l/Municipal Council refused to sanction the building plan for baseless reasons. It was further stated by the plaintiff that he had filed an appeal against the order dtd. 19/8/2002, which was also dismissed on 26/11/2002 and that the said orders were illegal as there was no Town Planning Scheme No.3 as alleged by defendant Nos.l and 2 and in case there was any such scheme, the same was never implemented, as had been held by various Courts of competent jurisdiction. After sending a legal notice, the suit was filed in which prayer was made that the orders dtd. 19/8/2002 and 26/11/2002 passed by defendant Nos.l and 2 respectively be declared as illegal, null and void and direction be given to defendant No.l to sanction the building site plan in respect of the suit land.

(3.) The defendants had filed the written statement in which it was submitted that the town planning scheme had been implemented within the stipulated period prescribed under law. It was denied that the suit property had been sold to the plaintiff vide sale deed dtd. 7/12/1964.