Letters Patent Appeal No.1408 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1408 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.8.2011 Ajit Pal Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the Caveator. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of respondent no.4 and directing the Municipal Council to take decision on the issue of sanction of the building plan in accordance with law. Case of respondent no.4 writ petitioner is that the property in dispute belonged to his father Bishan Singh who had constructed shops thereon after due sanction granted on 7.11.1969. Bishan Singh died on 22.5.2001 and had executed a will dated 22.4.2001 in favour of respondent no.4 and his brother. He sought sanction to the site plan in the year 2007 but sanction was not granted without any reason. Respondents No.4 to 7 appellants herein falsely claim title to the said property on the basis of a sale deed executed by one Gurmej Kaur wife of Surat Singh. The writ petition was contested mainly on the ground that there was a dispute of title and under Section 193 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, dispute of title could be a ground to reject the sanction of site plan. Learned Single Judge held that in view of the fact that the property was in possession of the father of the petitioner, who had constructed shops thereon after due sanction, the objection of dispute of title was not valid. Accordingly, the Municipal Council was directed to Letters Patent Appeal No.1408 of 2011 -2- *** decide the issue by passing a speaking order. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that under Section 193 of the Act disputed title could be a ground to decline the sanction and thus, interference by this Court is not called for. We are unable to accept the submission. Even if the committee may be able to refuse to sanction the plan on the ground of disputed title, there has to be a prima facie case for raising such a dispute. Admittedly, father of the writ petitioner was in possession and had constructed shops after due sanction of the Municipal Council. Though appellants have produced sale deed from Gurmej Kaur, they could not show any prima facie evidence of title in favour of said Gurmej Kaur. Moreover, Municipal Council has not so far taken any decision on the issue. Under these circumstances, learned Single Judge was justified in directing the Municipal Council to take a decision in the matter by passing a speaking order. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that appellants are not prevented from establishing their title in appropriate proceeding and if they are found to be owners, the effect thereof may be given in accordance with law. These observations may not be treated as expression of opinion on merits of the case of the parties. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice August 16, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge