R.S.A. No. 1197 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1197 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.1.2009 Municipal Council, Hisar ....Appellant Versus Shri Dharam Singh Panwar and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Sanjay S. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. V.S. Kajla, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007 passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents for injunction has been decreed in the following terms: - “In other words, the appeal is accepted to the extent that the Municipality would not interfere in the construction raised by the plaintiffs as well as their possession except by following due process of law for removal of encroachment from the Municipal land, if any. Decree sheet be prepared and appeal file be consigned to the records. The record of trial Court be returned to the Court concerned.” The plaintiffs brought a suit for restraining the defendant/appellant from demolishing the house, which was said to have been constructed after getting the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. R.S.A. No. 1197 of 2008 (O&M) -2- The case of the plaintiffs was that they were owner in possession of the land in dispute having purchased the same from Tarlochan Singh, who was, in fact, vendee from the Custodian Department. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court by observing as under: - “None of the counsel could show that the production of record of ownership is essential for sanctioning of the site plan. Thus, if a person is in possession and got a site plan sanctioned for construction of the house, it would not be an estoppel against the Municipal Committee not to proceed legally for removal of that encroachment. Even the communication with regard to sanction of site plan Ex. P5 clearly stipulated that this site plan is sanctioned subject to the condition that there is no encroachment on the land of Municipality or Government land. In nutshell, thus the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, which is based on the evidence which was beyond pleadings, cannot sustain. In other words, the appeal is accepted to the extent that the Municipality would not interfere in the construction raised by the plaintiffs as well as their possession except by following due process of law for removal of encroachment from the Municipal land, if any. Decree sheet be prepared and appeal file be consigned to the records. The record of trial Court be returned to the Court concerned.” The appellant has been permitted to take appropriate action against the plaintiff/respondents in accordance with law. Thus, appellant can have no grievance to challenge the decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court. The following substantial question of law has been framed by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the decree: - “Whether the learned District Judge has rightly set aside the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court?” The reading of the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court shows that the substantial question of R.S.A. No. 1197 of 2008 (O&M) -3- law, as framed, does not arise for consideration by this Court, as appellant has been allowed to proceed in accordance with law, if there is any encroachment. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 27, 2009 R.S.