CWP No. 11124 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 11124 of 2011 Date of decision: 6.7.2011 Mange Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 23.5.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.3. Case of the petitioner, as stated in the petition, in brief, is that Nihal Singh and Ganga Ram had purchased the plot in question measuring 234 square yards bearing khasra No.98//5/2 situated in Shiv Colony, Rewari from Inder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 28.12.1990. The petitioner, thereafter, purchased the plot from Nihal Singh and Ganga Ram vide registered sale deed dated CWP No. 11124 of 2011 2 23.2.2005. Passage measuring 12 feet was also part of the said plot. The petitioner had constructed a latrine, bathroom and septic tank in the said passage. A notice was issued by respondent No.4 on 15.6.2005 to the petitioner qua the construction raised by him in the street. The petitioner filed a civil suit on 16.8.2005 seeking relief of permanent injunction. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on 18.2.2010. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 25.5.2010. Respondent No.5 moved an application before respondent No.3 for removal of illegal encroachment made by the petitioner. When no action was taken on the application moved by respondent No.5, she filed CWP No.3815 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by issuing directions to Deputy Commissioner, Rewari to decide the representation moved by respondent No.5. Thereafter, the impugned order had been passed by respondent No.3 asking the petitioner to remove the construction made by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as the same had not been passed as per Section 181 (2) of the Haryana Municipality Act, 1973 (the Act for short). As per Section 172 of the Act, a declaration was necessary to be issued qua public street by the municipal council. In the present case, the impugned order had been passed without any such declaration in this regard. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Municipal Committee, Khanna vs. Tirath Ram and others AILLR 1982 Vol. IV 578. There is no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the site plan prepared CWP No. 11124 of 2011 3 by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rewari was produced on record before the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari. As per the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rewari dated 19.5.2011, the Municipal Committee, Rewari had laid inter-lock tiles in the street in question. An iron gate had been installed in the house of Savitri Devi. The petitioner had constructed a bathroom in front of the gate of the house of Savitri Devi. Before the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that he was entitled to construct the said bathroom. The Deputy Commissioner, after examining the photographs produced by the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Rewari and the site plan, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had illegally constructed the bathroom in a public street in front of the gate of the house of Savitri Devi. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy me that the place where the bathroom had been constructed belonged to the petitioner and was not a public street. I have gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner but the same fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 06, 2011 anita