MUNCIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. MAHADEV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 for mandatory injunction has been decreed with costs and defendant-appellant has been directed to issue letter regarding the sanction of building plan/revised building plan submitted by the respondent for reconstruction of the building.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, as per the allegations set out in the plaint, the plaintiff is the owner of the property as detailed in the plaint which is situated in the Main Bazar, Meham. The plaintiff submitted a site plan for reconstruction of building as Aggarwal Market after demolishing the same in the year 1991 at the same place for sanction of the appellant. He also deposited the requisite charges as per the building bye-laws. The building plan was sanctioned by the appellant vide its resolution dated 13.4.1992. However, later on, the appellant informed the respondent that the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, has not approved the said resolution and directed him to deposit building development charges at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yard. Since the demand raised by the appellant regarding development charges was illegal, the defendant filed a suit which was decreed by the Civil Court on 9.3.1998. The appeal against the said decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.1998. Despite this, the appellant did not issue sanction letter of the building plan. Since the litigation took a long time, there arose a need to revise the building plan; therefore, the plaintiff-respondent submitted the revised building plan to the Committee on 3.4.2002 for sanction. He also deposited the prescribed fee of Rs. 939/- vide receipt dated 3.4.2002. It is further averred that there is deeming provision of sanction under the municipal law for sanctioning of building plan under the Municipal Law. The plaintiff collected building material and also applied for bank loan. However, the appellant vide letter dated 18.7.2003 informed the respondent that defendant-respondent No. 2 has returned the building plan for completion of certain requirements. Thus, the case of the respondent is that these requirements are not applicable to him. The appellant failed to communicate about the sanction of his plan despite a lapse of period of two years. He also served a legal notice. Hence, the suit.

(3.) AFTER perusing the evidence of the parties as well as the arguments advanced on their behalf, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the site plan submitted by the plaintiff was allowed to be sanctioned by the appellant and further that the respondent was entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to give the sanction letter to the plaintiff-respondent regarding revised building plan. Consequently the suit was decreed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2007.