RSA No.2871 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2871 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2009 Municipal Council Thanesar, District Kurukshetra ...Appellant VERSUS Gian Chand Chopra ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Tarun Khaira, Advocate for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit claiming ownership of a certain piece of land which was disputed by the appellant-Municipal Council Thanesar on the ground that by notification dated 21.10.1999 the land of Shamlat Deh had vested in the Muncipal Committee. Learned trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that earlier at one point of time father of the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit in respect of only a portion of the land for which the suit has filed now and thus the plaintiff-respondent could not expand the extent of property in the second suit. Here it must be borne in mind that this suit was filed by the RSA No.2871 of 2008 (O&M) -2- plaintiff-respondent for injunction and not for declaration of ownership. The Lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent holding that the notification dated 21.10.1999 did not satisfy that the land in dispute had been a part of Shamtlat Deh. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. “Whether there has ensured misread, misconstrued and mis-appreciation of material evidence in the shape of oral as well as documentary evidence by the learned lower appellate court as averred in the memorandum of appeal? 2. Whether the learned lower appellate court has totally deviated itself from the legal aspect of the matter that vide notification dated 21.10.1999 the property in question which was shamlat deh vested in appellant- defendant viz., Municipal Council and further whether the said notification is law as envisaged under Article 13 of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for the injunction as prayed for in the wake of facts and circumstances of the present case? 4. Whether the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act? 5. Whether the learned lower appellate court deviated itself from looking into the sacred provisions of RSA No.2871 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Sections 61 and 62 of the Haryana Municipal Act?” As far as question Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they are purely questions of fact and learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon either been arrived without there being any evidence to support them or by such misreading that render them perverse. As regards questions No.4 and 5, the Courts below have considered these aspects and I find no reasons to differ from their views. It is a settled law that the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court is always to be construed strictly and such a suit, for permanent injunction restricting the Municipal Committee from illegally interfering in possession can not be held to be barred. As regards question No.3, learned counsel has argued that it is in fact a mixed question of fact and law. However, in view of the fact that both the courts below have held that the respondent was the owner of the property, it can not be held that he was not entitled for the injunction. Thus the questions Nos.3, 4 and 5 are decided against the appellant and consequently this appeal is dismissed. As the main case since has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 06, 2009 JUDGE ashish