RSA No.3194 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3194 of 2010 . Decided on: January 04, 2011. Maru Ram .. Appellant VERSUS Municipal Council, Narnaul and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The suit of the plaintiff-appellant for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-Municipal Council, Narnaul, to reconstruct the shop in dispute has been dismissed by the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant raised structure in front of his shop to encroach upon the public property. It has been held as a finding of fact that construction raised by the plaintiff-appellant . . . 1 RSA No.3194 of 2010 marked as ABCD in the site plan was raised by the plaintiff-appellant by encroaching upon thoroughfare, as such, Notice No.182 dated 17.06.2000, issued under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, was not illegal. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the shop in dispute is owned by respondent No.2, Suresh Chand and that the Municipal Council has issued notice under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, for punishment for immovable encroachment or overhanging structure over the street. Counsel for the appellant has also contended that without establishing the ownership as per the provisions of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed by the Courts below. He has placed reliance on Kotha Singh Vs. Municipal Committee, Narnaul, 1987, SLJ, Page 678, contending that as per the provisions of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, once the possession of the plaintiff over the site is established then onus to prove the ownership shifts to the person who disputes the ownership of the site of person who is actually in possession thereof. I have heard counsel for the appellant, at length, and gone through various provisions of The Haryana Municipal Act as well as the orders passed by the Courts below. I have also considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Courts below have held that there is no illegality in Notice No.182 dated 17.06.2000, issued by the Municipal Council, Narnaul, for removal of encroachment. There is no dispute regarding . . . 2 RSA No.3194 of 2010 the shifting of onus under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, and the proposition that if the plaintiff is proved to be in possession over the site then in order to prove the ownership, the onus shifts to the person who disputes the ownership of the site who is in actual physical possession thereof. But in the present case, the appellant is not the owner of the property nor any question regarding ownership was required to be proved for determining the validity of the notice under Section 181 issued to the plaintiff-appellant. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant seems to have been wrongly filed challenging the notice issued to him under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. If any structure had been demolished, the provisions of Section 209 of the Haryana Municipal Act, could have been invoked to file the appeal against the order of demolition. No question of law is involved in the appeal, as such, the appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to the other rights of the appellant. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 04, 2011. rka . . . 3