Regular Second Appeal No. 2016 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2016 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 03, 2009 Ludhiana Improvement Trust and another ......... Appellants versus Smt. Santosh Kumari and others .......... Respondents 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Shri Jitender Kumar Kamboj, Advocate for Shri Pradip Bhandari, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Dinesh Madhra, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 HEMANT GUPTA, J. Defendants No.1 and 2 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their employees etc from demolishing the construction including the boundary wall, dispossessing or interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property adjoining Plot No. 1-B measuring 150 sq. yards, was decreed. The learned First Appellate Court has decreed the suit for mandatory injunction directing defendants No.3 and 4 to sanction the building plan of the property of the plaintiff in accordance with law and rules. The plaintiff-respondent claims to have purchased the plot in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 5.7.1995. The Improvement Trust Regular Second Appeal No. 2016 of 2007 [2] has executed sale deed regarding the property in dispute in favour of S.P. Singh Sood on 20.5.1988. It was on 7.5.1996, the defendants started demolishing the boundary wall which the plaintiff has raised over the plot in dispute after its purchase. Thereafter, present suit for injunction was filed. In reply, it was pleaded by the Improvement Trust that Mr. Sood was not competent to bifurcate the plot allotted to him and he could not raise construction on the additional area which was given to him and that he is not authorised to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In evidence, it has been found that originally 150 sq. yards of land was allotted to Mr. Sood vide sale deed excuted on 20.5.1988, Exhibit P2. Exhibit P-3 is the sale deed executed by Mr. Sood in favour of the plaintiff. The site plan attached with the sale deed is Exhibit P-4. The plaintiff has submitted the site plan for sanction as Exhibit P-6, covering letter along with No Objection Certificate as Exhibit P-7 and P-8. Shri Rajinderpal Singh, Senior Assistant, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, appearing as PW1 has deposed that Mr. Sood has given an undertaking that no construction will be raised on the additional area adjoining to his plot sold to him vide sale deed dated 20.05.1988. The learned trial Court found that there is no condition in the conveyance deed dated 20.05.1988 that the purchaser will not be competent to raise any construction over the said plot rather the stipulation is that the building shall be raised within the time prescribed. It was further found that the Improvement Trust has not brought on record anything to reflect that Mr. Sood was not competent to raise construction over the plot measuring 150 sq. yards which was sold by it vide sale deed dated 20.5.1988, Exhibit P-2. It was further found that Exhibit DW1/A does not concern the suit land Regular Second Appeal No. 2016 of 2007 [3] which pertain to an excess area measuring 300 sq. yards adjoining west of plot No. 1-B, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. It was also found that plot measuring 150 sq. yards i.e. 15' x 90' , was allotted to Mr. Sood vide sale deed dated 20.05.1988. By giving wrong dimensions, Ludhiana Improvement Trust refused No Objection Certificate, resulting in non sanctioning of building plan of plaintiff. With the said finding, the suit was decreed. The findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court also granted decree for mandatory injunction directing Improvement Trust to issue No Objection Certificate to defendants No.3 and 4 to sanction the building plans of the property of the plaintiff in accordance with law and rules. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Mr. Sood has bifurcated the plot which is not permissible. The said argument cannot be substantiated in any manner. However, on the other hand, what has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is that it is 150 sq. yards plot which was purchased by Mr. S.P. Singh Sood vide sale deed dated 20.5.1988 and subsequently purchased by the plaintiff on 5.7.1995. The building has been raised upon the aforesaid plot only and the building plan is sought to be sanctioned for this plot only. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. August 03, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE