IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 2192 of 2009 Date of decision:9.2.2011 Muncipal Council, Thanesar Petitioner vs. Satish Kumar and others Respondent Present: Mr.Namit Gauttam, Advocate. Mr. SS Dinarpur, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant-Municipal Council for permanent injunction filed against the defendant- respondents stands dismissed by the courts below holding that the plaintiff- appellant has not been able to produce any evidence or any scheme prepared, adopted, implemented or approved by the Government showing that the land was reserved for park or for any other common purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the scheme 6-C was prepared by the Municipal Council but this scheme was not finally approved by the Government. In view of the said circumstance, the suit land cannot be said to be part of scheme No. 6-C and can also not be said to be reserved for park or any other purpose. No ground is made out for interference in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant . Dismissed without prejudice to the right of the Municipal Council to enforce its right on the basis of any scheme, which is finally approved by the Government in future. February 9 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE