Regular Second Appeal No. 2050 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2050 of 2006 Date of Decision : March 31, 2008 Municipal Council, Rohtak ....Appellant Versus Narinder and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Naresh Katyal, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff-respondent was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak on 25.8.2005 and the defendants were restrained permanently from demolishing the shop in question and also from causing any damage in any other manner. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the defendant-appellant by filing first appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak on 6.2.2006. Hence, the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In his suit, the plaintiff asserted that his father Jai Kishan was owner in possession of the shop bearing No. 43 situated in village Sukhpura, Rohtak, which he constructed about 20 years back. Thereafter, the said shop came within municipal limits and House-tax Regular Second Appeal No. 2050 of 2006 -2- was imposed, which was regularly paid. After the death of Jai Kishan in the year 1996, the plaintiff became its owner and got installed an electric meter. However, the defendants were bent upon to demolish the same construction on the ground that it was an unauthorised one. While opposing the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants filed their written statement and raised objections regarding the maintainability of suit, cause of action, limitation and jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. It was also submitted that no site plan had been supplied to the defendants and therefore, they had every right to demolish the construction of the plaintiff. On the basis of the evidence led by him, the plaintiff had been able to prove that the shop in question was constructed by his father Jai Kishan about 30/35 years ago and at the time of the construction, the area of the shop was within the limits of Gram Panchayat of village Sukhpura and it was only in the year 1990-91 that it came within the limits of Municipal Committee, Rohtak. In that situation, there was no requirement of any site plan to be got sanctioned before the construction of the shop. Mahabir Singh, House Tax Clerk of Municipal Council, Rohtak was examined by the plaintiff as PW4, who admitted that the property in question was shown in the record to be owned by Jai Kishan and the House Tax Receipt Ex.P.3 was also issued in the name of said Jai Kishan. Similarly, Om Parkash Sharma, Building Inspector, while appearing as DW1 stated that the property in question was Regular Second Appeal No. 2050 of 2006 -3- situated in the Shamlat land, although he was not aware of the Khasra number in which the same was situated. He also admitted the fact that the area of village Sukhpura had later on come within the municipal limits. However, he went on to say, although there was no such pleadings from the side of the defendants that the shop in question was constructed about two years. Moreso, this stand of Om Parkash Sharma-DW1 was not in conformity with the documentary evidence, which showed the ownership of Jai Kishan since 1990-91 and the payment of House-tax by him since 1997-98. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the defendant-appellant arise for determination. The appeal is, resultantly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 31, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO