R. S. A. No. 412 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 412 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 02, 2010 Sudhar Samiti, Ashok Nagar, Sonepat .... Appellant Vs. Municipal Council, Sonepat .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Sudhar Samiti, Ashok Nagar, Sonepat has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. The plaintiff alleged in the suit that a Janj Ghar (Barat Ghar) exists in the area of Ashok Nagar, Kachhay Quarters, Sonepat for the last 40 years before filing of the suit. Building plan of the said Barat Ghar was sanctioned by defendant Municipal Council vide resolution dated 17.12.1963. However, since building of the said Barat Ghar was very old and in dilapidated condition and its roof was also in dangerous condition, at the instance of general public, plaintiff Samiti passed resolution on 15.09.2000 to renovate the Barat Ghar and deposited Rs.1,21,980/- with the defendant on 06.03.2002 as development charges for reconstruction/ R. S. A. No. 412 of 2010 2 renovation of the Barat Ghar, for which building plan had already been sanctioned in the year 1963. However, when the plaintiff started renovating the building of Barat Ghar, the defendant prevented it from doing so. Defendant's officials asked the labourers to stop the construction work and threatened to demolish the construction already raised. The plaintiff accordingly sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in renovation work of the building of Barat Ghar and from demolishing the structure raised there. The defendant inter alia pleaded that plaintiff is not owner of the suit land, which is owned by defendant Municipal Council. The plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of the suit land and illegally raised construction over some portion of the suit land. Existence of Barat Ghar at the spot was admitted, but it was pleaded that the Barat Ghar is owned by the defendant. There was also a Government School Water Tank and Children Park in the suit land, but the plaintiff unauthorizedly encroached upon the suit land a few months ago. It was admitted that the defendant had sanctioned building plan for construction of Barat Ghar vide resolution no.2 dated 17.12.1963 and accordingly Barat Ghar was constructed there. It was denied that Barat Ghar is in dilapidated condition. It was pleaded that the plaintiff intentionally demolished the Barat Ghar, although the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property and had no right to demolish the Barat Ghar without permission of the defendant. The plaintiff has also illegally encroached upon the suit land and raised construction over a part of it and has also constructed some shops. The plaintiff deposited development charges and submitted building plan for approval, but without building plan approved by the defendant, the plaintiff started construction illegally and unauthorizedly and thereupon, defendant issued notice dated 26.02.2002 under Sections 208, 209, 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, but the plaintiff continued with the construction work. The defendant R. S. A. No. 412 of 2010 3 then issued notices dated 28.03.2002, 09.04.2002 and 15.04.2002 directing the plaintiff to stop the construction work, but still the plaintiff illegally carried on the construction work. Ultimately, notice dated 18.05.2002 was issued to the plaintiff to remove the construction already raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2008, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The Janj Ghar/Barat Ghar is not owned by the plaintiff and is rather owned by the defendant. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The plaintiff itself assumed right to demolish and reconstruct the Barat Ghar without any permission from the defendant. The plaintiff could not do so of its own. Admittedly, building plan submitted by the plaintiff for demolition and reconstruction of the Barat Ghar has not been approved by the defendant. Without approval of building plan, the plaintiff could not carry out any construction. The defendant is well within its rights to demolish the unauthorized construction raised by the plaintiff over the land of the defendant without approval of building plan. The plaintiff has also constructed some shops, which were not even sanctioned in 1963, when building plan for construction of Barat Ghar was sanctioned by the defendant. It is thus manifest that the plaintiff is grabbing the property of defendant Municipal Council without any right to do so. Self- styled office bearers of the plaintiff want to make money for themselves by encroaching upon the property of the defendant without any right. The instant litigation is complete abuse of the process of the Court. The plaintiff R. S. A. No. 412 of 2010 4 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and has no right to raise construction over the property owned by the defendant. The instant appeal is completely frivolous and devoid of merit. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 02, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE