RANJIT KAUR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs (appellants herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 10/1/2023. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court of learned District Judge, Faridkot on 19/1/2024, thus, affirming the judgment of the trial Court. Against these concurrent findings, the plaintiffs- appellants have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) According to plaintiffs, they are in possession of the disputed land measuring 807 sq. yards, on which they are running a Saw Mill in the name and style of M/s Guru Nanak Saw Mill for the last 40 years. Defendant - Municipal Council, Kotkapura (now respondent) had initiated proceedings under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 against the plaintiffs for getting the possession of the site, which was dismissed by the Collector, Faridkot on 30/1/2003. However, the appeal filed by the defendant was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dtd. 25/2/2004 and plaintiffs were directed to vacate the premises. It is contended by the plaintiffs- appellants that the said order has not been executed till date. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing them (plaintiffs) from the suit land, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 16/8/2017. Appeal filed by them was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 21/5/2018. It is alleged that on 28/3/2018, defendant initiated proceedings against the plaintiffs before Collector, Sub Division, Kotkapura under Sec. 5 of the Punjab Public Premises Act for getting the possession of the land on the basis of order dtd. 25/2/2004 of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot. Plaintiffs filed objections therein but the same were dismissed. Defendant again sent a notice dtd. 3/6/2019, which the plaintiffs allege to be null, illegal and void.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was taken on record and then ultimately trial Court dismissed the suit on 10/1/2023, which order has been affirmed by the Appellate Court as noted earlier.