RSA No.1261 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1261 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2011. Municipal Corporation, Rohtak ……Appellant Versus Smt. Rani Devi and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.3522-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Main appeal. Defendant No.1-Municipal Corporation, Rohtak (previously Municipal Council, Rohtak), has filed the instant second appeal, after remaining unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs, who being wife, two sons and a daughter of Nar Singh Dass are his legal heirs, filed suit against defendant No.1-appellant and proforma respondent RSA No.1261 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - No.5/defendant No.2-Director, Local Bodies, Haryana. The plaintiffs’ case is that their predecessor Nar Singh Dass purchased two plots Nos.31 and 32 from one Surya Kant vide two registered sale deeds dated 07.06.1979. Om Parkash Patwari and his son Mahesh etc. initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the said plots owned and possessed by Nar Singh Dass. In revision petition in the said proceedings, direction to seek remedy in Civil Court was given. Thereupon Nar Singh Dass filed Civil Suit No.320 of 1984 against Om Parkash etc. After demarcation, the said suit was decreed in favour of Nar Singh Dass by the trial Court on 31.08.1993. First appeal preferred by Om Parkash etc. in that case was dismissed on 23.05.1998 and even RSA No.2644 of 1998 filed by Mahesh etc. arising out of that suit was dismissed by this Court on 27.05.1999. Thereafter Mahesh etc. got a suit filed through Mange Ram and another against Nar Singh Dass and also against the Municipal Council, Rohtak. Nar Singh Dass in execution of decree dated 31.08.1993 passed in his suit (mentioned hereinbefore) took actual physical possession of the suit plots on 23.05.2001 and became absolute owner in possession of the said plots. After his death, plaintiffs being his legal heirs are owners in possession thereof. Defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest therein. Nar Singh Dass made application on 11.01.2005 to defendant No.1 for sanction of building plan for raising construction in the said plots and deposited requisite amount for the same with defendant No.1. However, defendant No.1 informed vide letter dated RSA No.1261 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - 22.07.2005 that the matter was subjudice and only after decision of the case by the Court, needful would be done. The plaintiffs by filing suit sought declaration and mandatory injunction for sanction of the building plan. Defendants inter alia pleaded that the matter was already pending in this Court and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It was denied that Nar Singh Dass was or the plaintiffs are owners of the disputed site. Plaint allegations were broadly controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2010 decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by defendant No.1 has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. There is already decree by the civil Court, as upheld upto this Court in second appeal, in favour of plaintiffs’ predecessor. Defendants have not claimed any right, title or interest in the suit property. On pointed inquiry, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the defendants in the written statement did not claim any right, title or interest in the suit plots. In this view of the matter, RSA No.1261 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - there is no occasion for defendant No.1-appellant for not sanctioning the building plan of plaintiffs’ predecessor. Even if regular second appeal arising out of suit filed by Mange Ram etc. is pending, this can be no ground for not sanctioning the building plan of the plaintiffs’ predecessor. There is no plea that there is any interim order in the pending second appeal arising out of the suit filed by Mange Ram etc., injuncting defendant No.1-appellant herein from sanctioning the building plan. It is suprising that defendant No.1 filed first appeal as well as the instant second appeal even without claiming to have any right, title or interest in the suit plots. It is apparent from the conduct of defendant No.1-appellant that it is siding with the other private party which is adversary party of the plaintiffs herein. Dispute of title between plaintiffs’ predecessor and Om Parkash, Mahesh etc. already stands decreed finally upto this Court and, thereafter second round of litigation was started by Mange Ram and another. Defendant No.1-appellant herein has no concern with the said round of litigation, although it is also party to the same. When there is no interim order in the said RSA, there was no reason for defendant No.1 for not sanctioning the building plan of the plaintiffs’ predecessor merely on the ground of the pendency of the said second appeal. By not sanctioning the plan on this ground, defendant No.1 has openly, but without any basis, sided with the other party i.e Mange Ram etc. This is highly unfortunate and uncalled for on the part of defendant No.1-appellant. RSA No.1261 of 2011 (O & M) - 5 - For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is completely misconceived and frivolous. Concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by various reasons recorded by the Courts below. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, this judgment is without prejudice to other pending RSA, if any. A copy of this order be sent to Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Haryana for taking appropriate action against generation of such unnecessary litigation by defendant No.1- appellant and also for taking some suitable steps to avoid such unnecessary avoidable litigation in future. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 16.03.2011 A.kaundal