Regular Second Appeal No. 3160 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3160 of 2009 Date of decision : July 09, 2010 Tejpal and others ....Appellants versus Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by legal representatives of plaintiff since deceased. Balak Ram alias Gobind Ram Nain filed suit against Commissioner and Joint Commissioner (Commissioner and Joint Commissioner by name) of Municipal Corporation Faridabad (in short, MCF) alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of suit plot measuring 1422 Sq. Yards having been allotted vide order dated 21.11.2001 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Officials of the Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Faridabad permitted plaintiff to construct boundary wall of the said plot upto height of 8 feet in addition to 3 feet height of the foundation and thereafter State Agency by affidavit submitted compliance report in Hon'ble Regular Second Appeal No. 3160 of 2009 -2- Supreme Court. Thereafter the plaintiff raised further construction and also submitted building plan with Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. The said building plan was not rejected nor accepted. The defendants threatened to demolish construction of the plaintiff existing in the suit property and in fact demolished some construction on 22.4.2003 and 23.4.2003. The plaintiff accordingly sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff also claimed injunction restraining defendants from demolishing any construction in the suit property and the construction already demolished is required to be restored. Defendants in the written statement, inter-alia, pleaded that the suit land is situated in controlled area and therefore, no construction could be raised in it without obtaining change of land use under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (in short, the Act) and without getting building plan sanctioned from MCF. All allegations of the plaintiff were denied. It was pleaded that the plaintiff raised unauthorized construction of Banquet Hall and allied rooms on the suit land in April, 2003 without sanction of building plan. Accordingly, notice dated 7.4.2003 was issued by MCF to plaintiff under section 261 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (in short, Corporation Act). The plaintiff failed to comply with this notice. Another notice dated 10.4.2003 was issued to the plaintiff, but still he failed to comply with the notice. Accordingly, the defendants demolished unauthorized construction raised by the plaintiff. It was denied that any building plan was submitted by plaintiff to MCF. Various other pleas were also raised. Regular Second Appeal No. 3160 of 2009 -3- Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit to the extent that MCF shall not demolish construction of the plaintiff which is not contrary to the provisions of the Corporation Act. However, first appeal preferred by MCF has been allowed by learned District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of the plaintiff have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for another adjournment to place on record some documents. However, no justification is made out for seeking further adjournment. The appeal was filed more than a year ago and the appellants' counsel has been seeking adjournments since beginning. On the preceding date of hearing, it was observed that no justification was made out for further adjournment yet another adjournment was granted till today making it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted. Accordingly, the request for adjournment is declined. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that construction of boundary wall upto 8 feet height was permitted by officials of Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Faridabad. However, learned counsel for the appellants on pointed enquiry is unable to refer to any document exhibited in evidence in trial court to support this contention. Even otherwise, officials of Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Faridabad could not permit any construction on the suit land which is in controlled Regular Second Appeal No. 3160 of 2009 -4- area under the Act. The plaintiff had to obtain change of land use from competent authority under the Act and had also to seek sanction of building plan from MCF and only then, the plaintiff could raise any construction. Consequently, any construction raised by the plaintiff in the suit plot is completely unauthorized and is illegal because admittedly the plaintiff has neither sought change of land use from the competent authority under the Act nor any building plan was got sanctioned by the plaintiff from MCF for raising any construction on the suit land. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, therefore, completely devoid of merit and has been rightly dismissed by lower appellate court. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 09, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'