Civil Revision No.1556 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1556 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : December 01, 2009 Tarun Mehendru ... Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Urban Development Authority & Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA. Dr.Satbir Singh Saini, Estate Officer HUDA, Panchkula. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This is plaintiff's revision petition, preferred against the order dated 6.3.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, dismissing his appeal against the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Panchkula, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff – petitioner (herein referred as the plaintiff) for temporary injunction restraining the defendants – respondents (herein referred as the defendants) from constructing public toilets on the open space in front of SCO NO.112- 113-114, Sector-25, Phase-I, Panchkula. Civil Revision No.1556 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is allottee in possession of SCO No.114, in front of which an open space, across the road, owned by the Haryana Urban Development Authority – defendant, is lying vacant for construction of public toilets and the same are being constructed for the convenience of general public as well as the adjoining owners. The argument raised by the counsel for the plaintiff is that the public toilets are being raised in contravention of the lay-out plan of Sector-25, Panchkula, sans any merit, because notwithstanding the fact with regard to the non- mentioning in the lay -out plan, the defendant – HUDA being the exclusive owner in possession of the said area, could make out any plan, while keeping in view the larger public interest, as per directions and suggestions given by the architectural machinery, appointed for the purpose. The area, where the public toilets are being constructed, is far away from the SCOs of the plaintiffs, and across the road. The Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs, while safe-guarding their interests that the toilets would be constructed, while ensuring 100% cleanliness in and around the public toilets by way of deputing special staff in that regard, so that the foul smell and nuisance is not caused, creating inconvenience to the plaintiffs. It may further be observed that the plaintiffs have lost in both the courts below and there are no special grounds for interference in the impugned order. Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. December 01, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE