MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. PADAM SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has come in appeal against the judgement, decree dated 24.8.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 45-S/13 of 1994 affirming the judgement, decree dated 31.3.1994 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (3), Shimla.

(2.) The facts in brief are that appellant had filed a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction on the grounds that he and proforma respondent No. 4 are owners of suit plot comprised in khasra No. 521/2, Station Ward Bara Shimla measuring 216 sq. yards 2 square feet which was purchased vide sale deed dated 29.8.1974. It has been alleged that adjacent to suit plot there is a plot of respondent No. 1 on which he has started excavation work for construction of a house. The respondent No. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? has constructed a wall in the shape of retaining wall and major portion of the wall has been constructed on the land of appellant and proforma respondent No. 4 measuring about 24' x 1' and 24' x 3' with height varying from 6' to 8 '. The respondent No. 1 as such has encroached upon the land of appellant by 24' x 1' and 24' x 3'. The respondent No. 1 intends to raise further construction without adhering to the regulations of interim development plan for Shimla area and without leaving set-back of one meter. The plan of respondent No. 1 has been approved by respondents No. 2 and 3 against the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act and byelaws and sanction is null and void.

(3.) The plot of respondent No. 1 is less than 150 square meters. The appellant has prayed mandatory injunction for removal of aforesaid retaining wall, prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession or encroaching upon the land of appellant and not to raise any construction within one meter from the boundary of appellant. The declaration was sought for declaring plan sanctioned and approved by respondents No. 2 and 3 is not in accordance with the Act and bye-laws and sanction be ordered to be cancelled.