R.S.A. No. 1080 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1080 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.3.2009 Rohtash Kumar ....Appellant Versus The Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2008 passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the decree passed by the learned trial Court stands modified to read that the plaintiff/appellant would be entitled to injunction against demolition and dispossession except in due process of law. The plaintiff/appellant brought a suit against the Municipal Corporation restraining them from dispossessing or demolishing the property said to be belonging to the plaintiff/appellant on the plea that there has been no violation by him in raising the construction, and even otherwise the construction raised was quite old which did not vest any R.S.A. No. 1080 of 2008 (O&M) -2- power with the Municipal Corporation to demolish or dispossess the plaintiff/appellant. The suit was contested. The learned trial Court was pleased to decree the suit, and grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. The learned lower appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, but modified the decree by holding as under: - “The plaintiff was fearing threat and demolition of his property. His case was that the defendants had no concern with the property and the defendants should be permanently restrained from interfering or demolishing it. The lower Court has decreed the suit and has permanently restrained the defendants from demolishing the property or interfering in their possession. The question is whether such a relief could have been allowed and the Corporation could be restrained from taking action under the Act. The question whether the building is old or new is not to be decided here nor there is any evidence. The Corporation cannot be restrained from taking action under the Act for all times to come. The Act sets out a procedure which has to be followed before taking action under the Act. No injunction could be granted restraining the Corporation to take action against the plaintiff for all times to come. The Corporation can certainly take action by taking recourse to law. The decree passed by the lower Court needs to be modified. The plaintiff had been unable to show that the construction was raised after the plans were got passed and the Corporation can proceed to take action under the Act. A decree for injunction is passed restraining the defendants from dispossessing or demolishing the construction except in due course of law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned.” R.S.A. No. 1080 of 2008 (O&M) -3- The learned counsel for the appellat contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - “Whether it was open to the learned lower appellate Court to have reversed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence without reversing the reasoning?” In support of substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that by way of evidence on record, the appellant had proved that the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation was bad in law, and even otherwise, there was no illegality which could entitle the Corporation to take action against the plaintiff/appellant. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned lower appellate Court upheld the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and granted injunction to the plaintiff/appellant, but modified the decree, as nobody can claim injunction against the authority restraining it from performing its duties under the statute. The defendant/respondents have been merely permitted to act in accordance with law. The substantial question of law raised does not arise for consideration in this appeal, as the findings have not been reversed. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 30, 2009 R.S.