Criminal Misc.No.6472 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT HANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: December 13, 2011 Municipal Council Narnaul .....Petitioner VERSUS Anil Kumar & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nirban, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two CRM-M Nos.6472 of 2009 (Municipal Council Narnaul Vs. Anil Kumar and another) and 6184 of 2009 (Municipal Council Narnaul Vs. Anil Kumar and another). The facts are being taken from CRM-M No.6472 of 2009. The petitioner has a grievance against the order passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Lok Adalat, Narnaul and the order passed by Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Misc.No.6472 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : revision filed by the petitioner against the said order. This grievance is raised by Municipal Council, Narnaul in the background of the facts that the committee had instituted a complaint under Section 208(2) read with Section 243 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”) before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. Respondent Anil Kumar and Avlok Kumar were found to have started raising construction of their house in an area of Purani Sarai Narnaul, when they were issued notice under Section 208 of the Act for demolition of the construction. This case against the respondents was assigned to Lok Adalat in accordance with law. Both the parties presented themselves before the Lok Adalat. The respondents had submitted before the Lok Adalat that they had submitted the site plan alongwith the requisite fees to the Municipal Council and had completed the construction prior to 28.8.2006, when no order was passed within a period of two months as given in the Section. The Lok Adalat discharged the respondents on the ground of absence of complete documentary evidence, which would support the stand of the Municipal Council. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Lok Adalat had disposed of the case despite the fact that there was no compromise or settlement. Plea is that Lok Adalat Criminal Misc.No.6472 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : cannot pass any order unless there is compromise or settlement. The revisional Court found that the petitioner had not passed any resolution authorising the Secretary of the Council to institute the revision petition. The copy of the resolution was not found placed on the record. Even no resolution was produced before the trial Court. The court accordingly dismissed the revision being not competent. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of the resolution was there, which was not noticed. The counsel further submits that Lok Adalat could not decide the case on merits and could have disposed of this case only on the basis of compromise or settlement. I cannot fully subscribe to this line of submission. The Lok Adalat has chosen to decide this trivial issue concerning the construction, which apparently was on the basis of deeming provision when the petitioner failed to pass any order on the request made by the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. December 13 ,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE