STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JASWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a regular second appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment and decree dated 13. 8. 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31. 3. 1986 and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Shri Jaswinder Singh and 15 others filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Administration, New Mandi Township Board, Chandigarh and State of Punjab from changing the nature and user of the plot noted by the words ABCD attached with the site plan and the case set up by the plaintiffs was that Punjab State with a view to establish market for the sale of surplus agricultural produce set up Mandi Township in different towns including Mullanpur Dakha. These mandi townships were being created by the Punjab Government under a statute known as, Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960. According to Section 3 of the said Act, the State Government had the power to declare any area to be Mandi Township and for that purpose the Government may lease or otherwise transfer by auction any land under the New Mandi Township Scheme. In pursuance of the said Act, a notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued declaring the area of Mullanpur Mandi to be a new township area. A plan of the said area was prepared demarcating therein residential, non-residential market area and other plots for its development. In that scheme the plot in dispute which has been shown red in the site plan marked as ABCD was kept reserved for the construction of a Primary School. The auction of the residential plot etc was held in the year 1967 and the plaintiffs also purchased plot with the understanding that disputed plot will be used for the purpose of Primary School. The plaintiffs have come to know that the defendants are bent upon to change the user of the disputed plot in order to store the filthy water. This contemplated action on the part of the defendants was illegal and there was no justification in doing so. If the defendants succeed in changing the user of the plot in dispute, it would adversely effect the health of the occupiers of the adjoining buildings. The defendants were called upon not to change the user of the plot in question. Since they did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs, hence the suit.

(3.) FROM the above pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPp 2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPd 3. Relief.