RSA No. 1878 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1878 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: September 30, 2010 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and another ...Appellants Versus Karamjit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellants. GURDEV SINGH, J. CM No. 5793 C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by the affidavit and which amounts to sufficient cause, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No. 5794 C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, delay re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 1878 of 2010 This second appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants, against whom decree was passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Faridabad, directing them to allot shop No. 19 within two months and hand over the possession thereof to the plaintiffs/respondents, failing which to hand over possession of 225 square yards in the area depicted in red colour in the site plan Ex. P.3, and whose appeal preferred against that judgment and decree RSA No. 1878 of 2010 2 was dismissed by the first appellate court, vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2009, affirming the decree so passed by the trial court. The plaintiffs were joint owners in actual physical possession of their plot measuring 225 square yards and they had raised construction thereon upto D.P.C. level, by raising boundary walls and two pucca shops. They alleged in their plaint that the plot was purchased by them from one Indira, vide registered sale deed dated 18.11.1985 and they raised the said construction by spending `2 lakhs. In the month of August, 1999, the defendants requested them to allow them to construct the boundary wall and pucca drain over that plot for the use of their office and in lieu thereof agreed to allot a plot of similar area near the Capital Bus Stand Market, Ballabgarh, within a short span of time, and to pay ` 2 lakhs damages in lieu of demolition of construction already raised by them. On that assurance of the defendants, they allowed them to demolish the construction on 25.8.1999, without getting any compensation from them. That plot was utilized by them by raising the boundary wall and constructing pucca drain and other space is being used for their office. However, inspite of making repeated requests, no such plot was allotted to them; nor compensation was paid. They served a legal notice upon them but without any result. The suit was contested by the defendants. In their written statement, they denied the contentions of the plaintiffs and, inter-alia, pleaded that the land bearing Khasra No. 139/3 is deemed to have been vested in them and the plaintiffs have got no right or interest thereon. No building plan was ever got sanctioned by them for raising any such construction. They could not have raised any unauthorized construction without getting the building plan sanctioned. They never approached the RSA No. 1878 of 2010 3 defendants with such a request nor they ever promised to give such a plot or to pay compensation. The boundary wall and the drain were constructed by them in their own land long ago. The plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit, which is false and frivolous. In replication to the written statement, the plaintiffs denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. On the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get allotted from defendants land/plot measuring 225 square yards either in the market opposite old Capital Bus Stand, near Nahar Singh Park, Ballabhgarh or in any other market at Ballabgarh over the land of M.C.F. or in the alternative to recover Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages in lieu of demolition of his property ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come in the Court with clean hands ? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed for want of service of notice under Haryana Municipal RSA No. 1878 of 2010 4 Corporation Act ? OPD 7. Relief. To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined Satya Prakash Mittal, Draftsman (PW-1), Gajraj Singh (PW-2) and Indira (PW-4). Tej Singh-plaintiff himself entered the witness box as PW-3. On the other hand, defendant examined Sahab Singh, Patwari, (DW-1). Both the parties also produced documentary evidence. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and resultantly, decreed their suit, vide judgment and decree, as aforesaid. As already stated, the appeal preferred against that judgment and decree was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the defendants/appellants. Before the trial court, one letter Ex. D.3 was proved and vide that letter, the defendants had allotted plot No. 19 to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the defendants was not able to satisfy this court as to how the findings recorded by the lower courts are perverse or that those are not being supported by any evidence on the record or that there is misreading of the evidence. It was on the basis of the letter Ex. D.3 that the main finding was recorded in favour of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly. September 30, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE