R.S.A. No. 3505 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3505 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.1.2011 Municipal Corporation, Bathinda ......Appellant Versus Parma Devi and others .......Respondents ********* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Kewal Krishan-through LRs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from demolishing any portion of his house. The case of the plaintiff was that he had constructed the house bearing Municipal No.20853 in the year 1970. Thereafter, plaintiff got the electricity connection and water and sewerage connection. Plaintiff had been paying house tax regularly to the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation. Now the Municipal Corporation had framed T.P. Scheme No.3 Part 1 in the area. The house of the plaintiff was in existence prior to the framing of the scheme. No part of the house of the plaintiff fell within the R.S.A. No. 3505 of 2009 (O&M) 2 site earmarked for the park. Despite this a notice had been issued to the plaintiff for vacation of portion of his house measuring 31'-9 x 70'. The officials of the Corporation before issuing the order had not got the property in question demarcated. Defendant-Corporation in its written statement averred that the area in dispute had been encroached by the plaintiff and hence the Corporation was authorized to demolish the illegal construction raised by the plaintiff. Notice qua vacation had been issued to the plaintiff by the Corporation in accordance with law. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction for the reasons mentioned in the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether suit is bad for non-service of statutory notice under the Municipal Corporation Act ? OPD. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant is entitle for special costs u/s 35A CPC/OPD. 6. Relief.” The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 2.5.2008. The appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed by District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 14.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. R.S.A. No. 3505 of 2009 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff is that he had constructed the house in the year 1970 before the formation of the scheme in question by the Corporation. The Corporation had constructed metalled roads in the area, water supply pipes had been laid by the Corporation and electrical poles had also been erected in the park. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had constructed the house in question, way back in the year 1970 and had been granted water as well as sewerage connection. House number was duly allotted to the plaintiff by the Municipal Corporation. At that time roads etc. had been constructed by the Municipal Council. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 11, 2011 Anand