Civil Revision No. 2659 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2659 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.07.2010 Parmod Goyal ....Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No.19305-CII of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed, order dated 12.8.2009 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. CR No.2659 of 2006 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.3.2006, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was declined. The plaintiff/petitioner, filed a suit pleading therein, the Civil Revision No. 2659 of 2006 (O&M) -2- defendants floated a scheme to allot plots to Press Reporters, and one plot bearing No.134 in SGM Nagar, Faridabad, was allotted to the plaintiff/petitioner vide allotment No. FCA/TI/91 dated 2.1.1992. The case of the petitioner was, that as per clause No.9 of the allotment letter the petitioner was competent to sell the plot in dispute or deal with it in any manner for commercial purpose after expiry of three years from the date of allotment. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/petitioner was, that due to compelling circumstances, the plaintiff/petitioner sought permission on 27.5.1997 for sale of the plot in dispute. The permission was granted by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, on 16.6.1997. The petitioner also deposited transfer fee vide receipt dated 17.6.1997 to the respondents. Thereafter, conveyance deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, in respect of the plot in dispute. The case of the petitioner was, that the plot was for commercial purpose/use and as period of three years had expired, he was competent to dispose off the same, which he did after permission from the respondents. The case further is, that the plot was being used for commercial purposes, for which it was allotted, as is clear from the report of the Tehsildar, who had inspected the site. The subsequent vendee opened a wine shop in the plot in dispute with the permission of the Haryana Government, thus, it was claimed that no violation was committed in the property in dispute. In spite of the fact that the plot in dispute was sold by the petitioner, the respondents served a legal notice No. MCF/JCCT/2003/7006 dated 19.9.2003 for taking further action against Civil Revision No. 2659 of 2006 (O&M) -3- the petitioner. This notice was challenged by the petitioner by claiming it to be illegal, null and void on the plea, that after allotment and execution of conveyance deed, the petitioner had become absolute owner of the plot in dispute, therefore, the respondent could not dictate the terms to the plaintiff/petitioner. The petitioner claimed, that there was no occasion to cancel the allotment letter and further dispossessing the plaintiff/petitioner from the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendant/respondents by taking preliminary objection with regard to maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. On merit, the allotment as also the permission to sell was admitted. However, it was averred that the plot in dispute was allotted for specified purpose for 'Patrakarita', therefore, he could sell the property for the said purpose only and for no other purpose. It was averred by the defendant/respondents, that it was in violation of the terms of the allotment, therefore, the notice issued was valid, which could not be questioned. The defendant/respondent also pleaded arbitration clause and prayed, that the suit be dismissed. The application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking injunction against the cancellation of the allotment letter, was declined by the learned Courts below on the ground, that the property in dispute was allotted for a specified purpose of 'Patrakarita', but the petitioner has changed the user as it was being used for selling of wine. The learned trial Court held, that prima facie there was no case in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, nor the balance of convenience was in his favour. Civil Revision No. 2659 of 2006 (O&M) -4- The learned trial Court, therefore, refused the injunction. The findings of the learned Courts below have been affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court. On consideration, I find that the judgment of the learned Courts below cannot be sustained, as they failed, to notice the admitted fact, that the plaintiff/petitioner had sold the plot to third party after the conveyance deed was executed in his favour and the period of three years had expired. The learned Courts below also failed to notice that the plot in dispute was sold by the plaintiff/petitioner to third party with permission of the respondents, wherein the defendant/respondents accepted the transfer fee of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only). Conveyance deed was duly executed. Once the conveyance deed was executed in favour of the third party, it is not understood as to how the allotment letter of the petitioner could be cancelled, for violation of the terms of the allotment letter, in which the petitioner had no role to play. The respondents could take action, if any, against the subsequent vendee, by proving their case against him, but certainly had no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice to the petitioner. In view of the admitted facts, the stand of the respondents was totally unsustainable in law, as the petitioner was neither allottee nor owner of the plot, on the date of notice and that there was no occasion for the respondents now to issue any notice for cancellation of the allotment of plot at this stage. For the reasons stated, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Revision No. 2659 of 2006 (O&M) -5- of the Code of Civil Procedure stands allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 26, 2010 R.S.