CHANDER MOHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the super structure of the shopping complex was dismissed.

(2.) The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the structure of the shopping complex on the averments that on 8.5.1985 the plaintiffs have deposited the development charges to the tune of Rs. 1290/-. Despite passage of time the site plan was not sanctioned but the Municipality asked the plaintiffs to submit fresh site plan. Fresh site plans were submitted on 18.9.1987 by depositing Rs. 20/- but still the Municipal Council did not sanction the plans despite expiry of 60 days period from the date of receipt of the application. As per the plaintiffs the plan is deemed to have been sanctioned in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (for short 'the Act'). The plaintiffs started raising construction according to such plans on 20.1.1988 which was completed by June 1990 but after more than six months of completion of construction the Municipal Committee issued a notice dated 29.2.1992 for demolition.

(3.) In the written statement it was the stand of the Municipal Council that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The area falls within the Town Planning Scheme No. 7 sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification dated 15.6.1967. Revised scheme was also published on 5.5.1976. Under the Town Planning Scheme the disputed site is a Municipal property i.e. a chowk as is clear from the site plan of the said scheme. The plaintiffs have encroached upon Municipal property and also Municipal drain which was in existence from the time immemorial. The site is open chowk. reserved for parking of the vehicles for the purposes of octroi. There is a water supply and sewerage line under the shops which the plaintiffs are said to have constructed recently under the garb of status quo order issued by the Court. Still further it is pointed out that earlier a notice was issued on 18.3.1995 for removing the barred wire fencing covering the disputed site. The notice was fixed at the gate of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs refused to accept the same and subsequently barbed wire fencing was removed. It is further pointed out that the Mechanical Engineer and the Sectional Officer of the municipality inspected the civil work by digging foundation of 11 shops. On their report notice under Section 195 and 195-A of the Act was issued on the same date. The plaintiffs under the status quo order granted on 9.3.1996 raised illegal construction by encroaching upon the Municipal property. Even after the status quo order it was found by the Sectional Officer of the Municipal Committee that roof of 11 shops was being laid and the labourers were working to lay the roof of one more shop. The plaintiffs were yet to fix the shutters of 12 shops. The photographs were also taken.