R.S.A. No. 3437 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 3437 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 4.12.2009 Municipal Council, Narnaul .... Appellant. Versus Ramesh Kumar & Ors ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present:- Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. Sabina (J) Plaintiff – Ramesh Kumar had filed a suit for perpetual injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from demolishing five shops completely built and one shop incompletely built in the garb of notice bearing No. 1702 dated 16.8.1999 and notice No.1 dated 22.8.99 and not to interfere in peaceful use of the property by the plaintiff. Vide judgment and decree dated 9.12.2002, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Narnaul. Aggrieved against the same, defendants filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 7.6.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant Municipal Committee, Narnaul. The facts of the case in brief, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment, read as under:- “2. the plaintiff took a plot measuring 123 square yards situated R.S.A. No. 3437 of 2007 in Mohalla Chanduwara, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, as detailed and described in headnote of the plaint on lease from Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred as the Board) vide letter dated 31.3.1994 and also obtained permission to reconstruct the property in dispute on 31.3.1994 from the Board. The plaintiff filed an application for permission of the Municipal Council Narnaul to reconstruct the property in dispute which was rejected by Municipal Council Narnaul on 25.5.1995. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Narnaul which was allowed by him on 17.10.1995 and the Municipal Council Narnaul was directed to decide the matter afresh on merits and the file was sent back to Municipal Council Narnaul. The site-plan of the plaintiff was ultimately sanctioned on 16.4.1996 and copy thereof was sent to the plaintiff as per rules. The plaintiff started construction but Shri Dharmik, Ramleela Committee Narnaul filed a civil suit against the present plaintiff and an order of status quo was passed. So, the plaintiff had to stop the construction work. The stay order was later on confirmed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of status quo passed by the trial Court before the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul which was accepted and the plaintiff was set at liberty to raise construction over 123 Square yards the property in dispute as per sanctioned site-plan dated 16.4.1996. The plaintiff started construction work and laid roofs on the shops already built up to roof level. The defendants R.S.A. No. 3437 of 2007 issued two notices No. 1702 dated 16.8.1999 under Sections 208/209 of the Haryana Municipal Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) and No.1 dated 22.8.1999 under Section 235 of the act to demolish the building on the ground that the plaintiff is raising construction without sanction. The defendants issued the notices in connivance with some members of Municipal Council who happened to be members of the Dharmik Ramleela Committee. The plaintiff visited the office of the defendants and submitted written reply of the notices but to no effect. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants have demolished the property in dispute. So a decree be passed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to construct the property in dispute at its expenses. 3. After notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement, while contesting the suit and asserted that the site-plan was rejected on 16.4.1996 and even if sanction is presumed the time for permission to reconstruct has elapsed and without fresh permission the plaintiff cannot raise construction. However, issuance of notices has been admitted and asserted that the notices are legal and as per the act and rules thereunder. The Municipal Council has every right to issue the notices and is well within its powers to demolish the construction, if the notices are not complied. It is also admitted that a reply of the notice was submitted by Ramesh kumar but without any signature. So, the R.S.A. No. 3437 of 2007 reply is invalid an even otherwise the reply was not supported with any affidavit. The period for which sanction of construction is given is only one year and after lapse of the stipulated period of one year, a new sanction is required. The plaintiff did not raise construction within the stipulated period of one year. So, the Municipal Council is well within powers to demolish the construction and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendants also raised additional objections of locus-standi, cause of action, jurisdiction, notice under Section 52 of the Act and the suit is false and frivolous. So liable to be dismissed with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff has taken any property on lease from Punjab Wakf Board?OPP 2. Whether the notices dated 16.8.99 and 29.8.99 issued by Municipal Committee, Narnaul, are unvalid?OPP 3. whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?OPD 4. Whether the defendants were having any legal right to demolish the construction of the plaintiffs?OPD. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct?OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 52 of R.S.A. No. 3437 of 2007 MC.Act?OPD 9. Whether the defendants are entitled for any costs?OPD 10.Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for perpetual injunction that the defendants be restrained from demolishing his shops. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had started raising construction within the stipulated period of one year from the sanction of site plan and hence notice No.1072 dated 16.8.1999 Ex. P-7 and notice No. 1 dated 22.8.1999 Ex. P-8 were not in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the Courts below held that the plaintiff was entitled for decree and pemanent injunction restraining the respondents for interfering in his peaceful possesion. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to counter the finding of fact arrived by the Courts below. No substantial question of law has been arise in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. December 4, 2009 (Sabina) tripti Judge