Civil Revision No. 2215 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2215 of 2008 Date of decision : 12.1.2010 Municipal Council, Sangrur ....Petitioner Versus M/s Tilak Ram Krishan Chand ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.G.S.Attariwala, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-Municipal Council filed a suit for declaration to obtain the invalidation of a sale deed (No.3251 dated 9.2.2001) executed by it in favour of (respondent-defendant) and also applied for the restraint of the latter from alienating that property any further. The plea was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, vide order dated 24.7.2007. However, in appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur reversed it in part inasmuch as it restrained alienation of only 16 sq. yards area which was not a part of the original tenancy. The property in suit concededly belongs to the petitioner herein which leased it out to the defendant-respondent in the year Civil Revision No. 2215 of 2008 -2- **** 1955 for a period of three years which period came to be extended thereafter from time to time. The Government of Punjab (vide its memo No.10/18/94-2LG3/8027 dated 20.7.2000) announced a policy that the commercial property rented out by the Municipal Council may be disposed of in favour of the existing tenants/occupants on payment at the rate of 50% of the market value of the property to be determined by the District Level Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner. In pursuance of that policy, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, formed a sub-committee which at its meeting held on 20.10.2000 fixed the rate of property at Rs.15,000/- sq. yard. The Deputy Commissioner specifically ordered that the property shall not be sold at a price of less than Rs.15,000/- per sq. yard. The currency period of that scheme was noticed in the notification itself to be six months and, in that view of things the scheme was to be valid upto 19.1.2001. The formulation further indicated that if an occupant/tenant was not able to get the sale deed registered within the prescribed limit, the Deputy Commissioner would be obliged to get the market value of that property reassessed and it is only on payment of the reassessed value that the sale deed would be got registered. In the case in hand, the sale deed was executed and registered on 9.2.2001 i.e. beyond 19.1.2001. No reassessment of the market value of the property was got done. Further,the plot was sold at the rate of Rs.7500/- per sq. yard which was one half of the value assessed by the District Level Committee at its meeting held Civil Revision No. 2215 of 2008 -3- **** on 20.10.2000. It was on the above averment that the petitioner- Municipal Council filed a suit to obtain invalidation of the impugned sale deed and also applied for injunction to the effect. Learned Trial Court granted the requested ad-interim injunction in entirety; while the Ist Appellate Court restricted the relief granted to only 16 sq. yard which did not form part of the tenancy. In short, the essential part of the requested stay plea was declined by the learned Ist Appellate Court. The plaintiff-petitioner is in revision against it. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the file. None entered appearance on behalf of respondent on 8.1.2010 and today also to resist the petition on behalf of the respondent. It is apparent from the material obtaining on the file that the foundational plea of suit filed by the petitioner and also the ad- interim relief sought by it is that impugned sale is in complete violation of policy formulated by the State of Punjab. The averment in the context, is that undue pecuniary advantage had been given to the defendant-respondent by the municipal officials who colluded with the defendant in the transaction aforementioned. As the very validity of the impugned sale deed is under adjudication, rule of propriety and prudence would require that there is an order directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the Civil Revision No. 2215 of 2008 -4- **** alienation of the disputed property. The coming in of 3rd party interest would complicate the controversy. The learned Trial Judge had recorded absolutely acceptable reasoning in support of the finding upholding entitlement of plaintiff-petitioner to the grant of requested injunction in entirety. The learned Ist Appellate Court went completely wrong in law and appreciation by reversing the order aforementioned by observing that the Municipal authorities could effect the recovery of the deficit amount qua which the respondent-defendant had drawn pecuniary advantage from the municipal official. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Ist Appellate Court. For the foregoing reasons, the petition shall stand allowed. The order granted by the learned Trial Judge is upheld; while the reversal thereof by the learned Ist Appellate court is set aside with the restoration of the order granted by the learned Trial Court. The defendant-respondent shall stand restrained from alienating the disputed property till the disposal of the suit. In view of the fact that the civil suit under reference has been pending since the year 2005 and also in view of the fact that adjudication pertains to a public property, it is directed that learned Trial Court shall dispose of the main suit itself with three months from the next date of hearing. If next date of hearing falls beyond stipulated period of three months the learned Trial Court shall be entitled to prepone it after appropriately notifying the party opposite. The interim stay, granted vide order dated 11.4.2008 by a Civil Revision No. 2215 of 2008 -5- **** Coordinate Bench (Rajive Bhalla, J.) shall stand vacated. The vacation thereof shall be intimated forthwith by the Registry to the learned District Judge concerned and also the learned Trial Court. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. January 12,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE