IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 94 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 4 , 2011 Jamna Devi Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and anr. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. N. S. Chandel, Advocate, for the appellant/plaintiff. For the respondents : Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents/defendants. . Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Undisputedly plaintiff Jamna Devi was allotted land by the Municipal Council Mandi. However, she raised a structure thereupon which was sought to be demolished by the Municipal Council for the reason that the same was without any sanction or permission. Plaintiff’s Civil Suit No. 30 of 2004, titled as Jamna Devi versus Municipal Council Mandi and another, seeking restraint order against the Municipal Council from demolishing the structure, stands dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Mandi, H.P. in terms of judgment and decree dated 31.7.2007. The same stands affirmed in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff which also stands dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 30.3.2010 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2007, titled as Jamna Devi versus Municipal Council Mandi and another. 2. The Courts below have concurrently held that plaintiff was not entitled to raise any temporary shed (khokha) on the suit land. Land was allotted to the plaintiff under the provisions of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 on tehbazari basis. There are specific Rules for allotment, which do not allow raising of any structure, temporary or permanent, on the allotted land. As such, the plaintiff has got no right to raise any structure on the suit land. In this background I do not find any reason to interfere in the instant appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the plaintiff in the impugned judgments and decrees. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that with respect to similarly situated persons no action has been taken by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents assures the Court that necessary action in this regard shall positively be taken by the Council within a reasonable period of time. 4. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 4 , 2011 (PK)