IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3866 of 2006 Date of decision: December 19, 2008 Balbir Singh ... Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Sirhind ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. C.R. Chaudhary, Advocate. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of certain amounts on account of malba fee, sanction fee of site plan and composition fee etc. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the notice out of which the suit has arisen, was issued as a counter blast to a complaint for demanding illegal gratification moved against the Executive Officer of the respondent and that two petitions for quashing the said complaint have been dismissed by this Court. She further argued that in fact the building was originally constructed much before village Attewali came into limits of the Municipal Council, Sirhind and at that time there was RSA No.3866 of 2006 -2- no occasion to the appellant to get the site plan sanctioned. She further argued that the suit was not properly filed since there was no resolution which authorise the Executive Officer to file the suit. I gone through the resolution which has been reproduced at the page 15 of the paper book. Even though on a strict interpretation it can be said that the Resolution did not in terms authorise the Executive Officer to file the present suit yet a perusal thereof does reveal that the resolution authorised the Executive Officer to engage a separate lawyer for dealing with those persons who raised construction without sanctioning the site plan. Consequently, the suit cannot be held to have filed by an unauthorised person. The Lower Appellate Court has found that in the application for sanctioning which was admittedly moved by the appellant to the Municipal Council the site plan annexed therewith showed existing construction of 2841.375 sq. feet while in his evidence the appellant claimed that the existing construction was 3500 sq. feet. In these circumstances, the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the appellant had started the construction of the extension without getting the site plan sanctioned cannot be held to be perverse or not arising from the material on record. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. December 18, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE