C.W.P.No.19301 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19301 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.10.2011 Kanwal Kumar Jain & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Sandhana Kaushal wife of Ajay Kaushal (respondent No.5) and Dilbag Singh son of Joginder Singh (respondent No.6), claiming themselves to be owners and in possession of the plots in dispute, applied to the Executive Officer (for short “the EO”) of the Municipal Committee (for brevity “the MC”), Mukerian (respondent No.3) for the approval/sanction of their respective building plans, under the provisions of The Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), to raise the indicated constructions. The EO approved/sanctioned their building plans (Annexures P11 and P12) respectively. 2. Aggrieved by the approval/sanction of the aforesaid plans, Kanwal Kumar Jain son of Jagan Nath Jain and others petitioners straightway jumped to file the instant writ petition, challenging the same, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through C.W.P.No.19301 of 2011 -2- the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 4. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that although the disputed plots were shamlat/abadi deh and could not be transferred/sold to respondent Nos.5 and 6, by way of sale deeds dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure P7) and 18.2.2010 (Annexure P8), but the EO of MC has wrongly sanctioned their building plans despite the objections, having been raised by the petitioners, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 5. As is evident from the record that, having purchased the plots in question since long, respondent Nos.5 and 6 applied for obtaining the approval/sanction of building plans to raise constructions, which was granted to them by the EO, by virtue of site plans (Annexures P11 and P12). As is clear that, Section 193 of the Act deals with the sanction or refuse to approve the site plans for erection or re-erection of the buildings by the MC. The MC has the power to sanction or refuse the approval of the building plans on the grounds as depicted in this section and not otherwise. Whether the sale deeds (Annexures P7and P8) are legal, valid or otherwise is not within the domain of EO to decide the question of title, as urged on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Such question of validity or otherwise of the indicated sale deeds cannot possibly be decided by the EO, which is in the domain of civil Courts. The EO is required only to decide such sanction/approval on the grounds mentioned in the Act and question of title is to be decided by the civil Courts, in view of the observations of this Court in case Kairon Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2011-2) P.L.R. 724. Therefore, the contrary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances and the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. C.W.P.No.19301 of 2011 -3- 7. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioners. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 14.10.2011 Judge AS