IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2785 of 1988 Date of decision: 30th November, 2010 Amar Singh … Appellant Versus Municipal Committee,Sirhind … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the Municipal Committee, Sirhind to sanction the building plan submitted by him on 17th April, 1985 as he wanted to make addition and alteration in his house. The respondent-defendant vide its letter No.1226 dated 1st June, 1985, had refused to sanction the same on the ground that the site was under the Well and was a common property. This letter was challenged in the said suit. The Municipal Committee, through its Executive Officer, appeared and filed written statement, wherein a categoric stand was taken that the plaintiff had encroached upon the public passage and the site in question belonged to the Municipal Committee. The trial Court came to a conclusion that the land in question was purchased by the appellant-plaintiff from one Mangta son of Bhagwana vide a sale deed Ex.P1, which was executed on 26th July, 1955. The trial Court further held that the witnesses examined by the appellant-plaintiff have satisfied the requirement of Section 69 of the Evidence Act and have proved the document, i.e. sale deed. Regular Second Appeal No.2785 of 1988 Aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court, the respondent-committee filed an appeal. The appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that even Mangta had no title over the property conveyed to the appellant-plaintiff. The lower appellate Court further held that it is clear that the appellant-plaintiff had purchased the property from Mangta. However, relying upon the cross-examination of the appellant-plaintiff, it held as under: “8. … … … Amar Singh PW stated in his cross- examination that after the door of his house there is drain constructed by the Municipal Committee, Sirhind. The well in question is filled with dirty water. Rajinder Kumar PW6 stated that the well is in front of the house of the plaintiff. Sh.Gian Singh Advocate DW7 stated that the well is public property and the plaintiff wants to encroach upon the area of the well situated in municipal street. It is clear from site plan Ex.PW6/A that the well is situated in the Chowk. In the municipal street, there is a drain. How could this well be the property of the plaintiff or that of Mangta if this well is situated in the Chowk and there is municipal drain in the street. It is thus clear that the site shown in red in the site plan Ex.PW6/A was not owned by the Municipal Committee as it is situated in the public street and, therefore, the municipal committee was justified in refusing to sanction the plan submitted by him to the Municipal Committee for sanction.” The appellate Court below further held that the suit was liable to be dismissed, as the appellant-plaintiff had not issued notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act. This Court need not to go into the controversy regarding non- issuance of the notice, as from a perusal of the evidence, it is evident that the suit property was not even owned by Mangta and was a property of the Municipal Committee. Therefore, the finding of fact returned by the appellate Court below cannot be disturbed in a regular second appeal, as 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2785 of 1988 neither any substantial question of law arises nor has been formulated for consideration of this Court. de Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 30, 2010 rps 3