RSA No.156 of 1988 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.156 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2010 Municipal Committee, Nakodar, District Jalandhar ............Appellant Versus Ram Parkash ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant/respondent challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.8.1987 passed by Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, thereby allowing the first appeal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent restraining the defendant from demolishing the construction made by the plaintiff shown as red in the plan and described in the heading of the plaint. RSA No.156 of 1988 (O&M) -2- 2. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit property shown as red in the plan and described in the heading of the plaint, on the basis of a sale deed; plaintiff got a construction plan sanctioned from the defendant/Municipal Committee and raised construction accordingly; defendant/Municipal Committee was adamant to demolish the construction illegally. 3. The defendant/Municipal Committee contested the suit on the ground that plaintiff had raised construction by encroaching upon the public land. 4. Learned first Appellate Court held that plaintiff had proved the sale deed Ex.P-2 which was executed by the defendant/Municipal Committee and thereafter plaintiff got the map sanctioned from the Municipal Committee and raised construction on the suit property. It was further observed by learned first Appellate Court that Municipal Committee could not prove that plaintiff had encroached upon the public land and had raised construction beyond the measures given in the sanctioned map. 5. It is settled position of law that finding of fact recorded by learned first Appellate Court can not be lightly disturbed under Section 100 C.P.C. in the second appeal, even if two views are possible. 6. In view of the fact that plaintiff (herein respondent) had purchased the property from the Municipal Committee (herein appellant) and thereafter got the map sanctioned from Municipal Committee/appellant, I find no reason to interfere with the view taken RSA No.156 of 1988 (O&M) -3- by learned first Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 7. Hence, appeal is devoid of merit, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( ALOK SINGH ) 12th May, 2010 JUDGE ashish