RSA No. 2977 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2977 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.8.2009 Amar Iqbal Singh ......Appellant Versus Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri Rajbir Singh Guron, Advocate, for the Appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff claiming decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the constructed area comprising of cattle shed and other constructions, was partly decreed. The plaintiff sought permission to raise construction of cattle shed after purchase of the land in the year 1992. Such permission was granted vide letter dated 4.6.1992. However, the permission granted was withdrawn on 22.1.1998 after serving a show cause notice dated 6.1.1998. It was pointed out by the defendants that the plaintiff has constructed unauthorised shed measuring 60 x 12 (roof tin), three rooms, three RSA No. 2977 of 2009 (2) bathroom, boundary wall, nine rooms (residential complex), gallery and hall, nine office rooms, bamboo shed for marriage purposes covered with tent cloth, servant quarter/security rooms, boundary wall and a gate. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit and restrained the defendants from demolishing the cattle shed only as per the sanction letter Exhibit D.1. However, suit in respect of the remaining construction and running of nursery was dismissed. Before the learned first Appellate Court, the plaintiff as well as the defendants were in appeal, but both the appeals were dismissed. Without commenting upon the contentions which the Chandigarh Administration may raise in its appeal, if so filed, it is apparent that injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff to the extent the construction has been raised over the land in terms of sanction letter Exhibit D.1. Any further construction raised by the plaintiff is obviously unauthorised and, therefore, injunction in respect of such construction has been rightly declined. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10-08-2009 ds