MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. HARSARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Municipal Committee, Pehowa, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against, the judgment and decree dated 10.1.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal camp at Kurukshetra who accepted the appeal of the plaintiff Shri Harsarup and set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1979, passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Kaithal who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for injunction as prayed for.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Shri Harsarup Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 to 4, seeking to restrain defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 over the suit property covered by the structure shown red in the site plan dated 16.12.1976 either by dispossessing them or by raising any construction. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the disputed piece of land measuring 69' x 63' as fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint belongs to him and defendant No. 4, Shri Basant Ram. They applied to defendant No. 1, Municipal Committee, for raising construction over the vacant site and the permission was accorded in the site plan dated 16.12.1976 through resolution No. 18(ii) in an emergent meeting held on 23.4.1966. Defendant No. 4 and plaintiff then sought extension of time for raising construction for defendant No. 1 and the same was granted through resolution No. 5 dated 19.3.1967. Plaintiff and defendant No. 4 then raised the construction within the time limit granted by defendant No. 1 and the said construction remained in existence for a period of about 8/9 years. It was further pleaded that plaintiff and defendant No. 4 were the owners of the site underneath the construction shown as red in the site plan dated 16.12.1976 and they were in possession since the time immemorial. It was further pleaded that defendants No. 1 to 3 were acting in an arbitrary manner and they illegally demolished the boundary wall of the said construction. It was further pleaded that after demolishing the construction defendants No. 1 to 3 threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 from their possession. It was pleaded that no part of the site covered by the structures vested in defendants No. 1 to 3 and their aforesaid action was un-called for an unwarranted by law. They did not desist from their design. Hence this suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 to 3. They filed a joint written statement and pleaded that place of land in dispute was part of the Municipal land measuring 90'x 80' and was reserved for the Municipal Park through resolution No. 9 dated 16.3.1968. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff obtained sanction of the map through the members of the committee who were interested in him but he was not allowed to construct anything over this property. It was, therefore, claimed that plaintiff and defendant No. 4 had no right whatsoever over the property in dispute nor they were ever in possession of the same. It was further claimed that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit and that he had no cause of action. It was also pleaded that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaintiff did not serve any notice before the institution of the suit.