Civil Revision No.2979 of 2008 :1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: May 22, 2008 Gita Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS The Municipal Council, Jind ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? PRESENT: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim injunction was declined by the lower Appellate Court and so she has filed the present revision petition to impugn the same. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration challenging the notice issued to her by the respondent-Municipal Council, Jind. She has further made prayer for restraining the respondent from demolishing the part of the house of the plaintiff shown with red colour in the site plan. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has encroached part of the gali on both sides of which the petitioner has a house. When notice is issued to the petitioner for Civil Revision No.2979 of 2008 :2 : demolishing the same, she has filed this suit making the prayer for interim injunction as noticed above. No doubt, the petitioner is the owner of the two houses and in between lies the portion which is stated to be a public street. The sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner would not indicate that the portion, which is stated to be street, belongs to the petitioner. She could not otherwise show any document to show her ownership over the portion of this land. The primary submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the gali is also not owned by the Municipal Committee and is also not a public street and as such the notice issued to her by the Municipal Council cannot be sustained. This line of submission may not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, the Municipal Council would be competent to issue notice for demolishing of any building on the gound that the construction has been raised without obtaining sanction from the Council. This is one of the reasons which had weighed with the court in declining the prayer of the petitioner as she has raised construction on this area of the land without obtaining sanction of the Municipal Council. The ownership of this trip of land, as such, would be immaterial which in any case has not been shown to be belonging to the petitioner. I accordingly do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. May 22, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE Civil Revision No.2979 of 2008 :3 :