C.R. No. 4745 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4745 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.09.2010 Municipal Council Panipat .... Petitioner Versus Rajeev Garg and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG Haryana for respondent No. 4 – State 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Defendant-petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge, Panipat whereby appeal filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) against order passed by learned trial Court in application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was allowed and defendants were directed not to demolish the building till the final decision of the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant argues that sanction to raise construction was wrongly granted to the plaintiffs while it ought to have been granted by Director Urban Development C.R. No. 4745 of 2009 2 Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that realising the mistake sanction granted in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) was withdrawn. She further states that constructions were being raised on the agricultural land without getting land use change. She further contends that after withdrawal of the sanction and without getting the land use change plaintiffs had absolutely no jurisdiction to raise and complete the construction, hence, construction is illegal and unauthorized and Municipality has every jurisdiction to demolish unauthorized and illegal construction. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in view of these legal aspects Appellate Authority ought to have declined injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated that all the issues as to whether sanction was wrongly granted or constructions were raised on the agricultural land shall be examined by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further states that without examining all these aspects demolition would not be justified. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that discretion exercised by learned Addl. District Judge while restraining the defendant-petitioner not to demolish the construction of the plaintiffs till the pendency of the suit is preferably valid. As to whether sanction was validly withdrawn by the petitioner and as to whether construction were raised by the plaintiff over agricultural land without getting the land use change shall be examined by the trial Court. It is settled position of law that if suit involves legal and factual issues to be adjudicated then property in dispute should be preserved in the present form otherwise purpose for filing the suit C.R. No. 4745 of 2009 3 may be defeated. I find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Appellate Court. Petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 23.09.2010 JUDGE reena