RSA No.2849 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2849 of 2008 Date of decision:27.1.2010 Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar .....Appellant vs. Vineet Bhatia and others. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Ms.Monisha Lamba,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent for declaration to the effect that the notice dated 14.2.2003 issued by the appellant is illegal and further the appellant be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondents over the suit property was decreed. As per the averments made in the suit, plaintiff purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed No.1997 dated 9.6.1999 from one Narinder Mohan Thapar who was the allottee and rightful owner in possession of the plot in question. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted a site plan to the appellant for construction of the shop and deposited the requisite fee on 2.7.1999. Site plan was sanctioned on 30.3.2001. Thereafter the plaintiff-respondent constructed the shop over the suit property in accordance with the site plan and the construction was completed in the month of May 2001. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for water connection RSA No.2849 of 2008 2 etc. and was using the shop in question. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he received the impugned notice dated 14.2.2003 for cancellation of the site plan dated 30.3.2001, which was illegal, hence the suit. Upon notice defendants contested the suit raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the lay out plan of society was amended from time to time and as per the latest lay out plan sanctioned by the Director,Local Boadies,Haryana, Chandigarh on 8.3.1995, the property in dispute was shown as vacant property. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent could not claim any ownership rights over the property. It was admitted that the site plan was sanctioned by the appellant. However, the stand taken by the appellant was that the material facts were not brought to the notice of the Municipal Council at the time of sanction of the site plan dated 30.3.2001 and when the same came to their knowledge the impugned notice was issued which is legal and valid. On appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below decreed the suit. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal before this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant-Municipal council was well within its rights to issue the impugned notice as undisputedly the lay out plan of the area was changed vide lay plan dated 8.3.1995. Thus the sanction granted to the plaintiff-respondent in ignorance of the material facts was of no consequence and therefore, the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the RSA No.2849 of 2008 3 appellant has argued that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- 1.Whether judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are sustainable in the eyes of law ? 2.Whether the suit of the respondent/plaintiff ought to have been decreed specially when it has come on record that there were concealment of material facts at the time of sanctioning of plan ? 3.Whether the suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the impugned notice dated 14.2.2003 was appealable under the provision of Haryana Muncipal Act, 1973 ? On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff-respondent had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 9.6.1999 from its original owner who was rightly allotted the property in dispute. Therefore, being the owner of the property in dispute, the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to enjoy the property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent also submitted before this Court that the very basis of the case of the appellant i.e., the lay out plan dated 8.3.1995, which has neither been placed on record, nor the same has been proved, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below are without any infirmities. I have have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. It is not in dispute that despite the fact that the case of the appellant is based on lay out plan dated 8.3.1995, the same has neither been placed on record nor has been proved in accordance with law. Thus, the stand taken by the appellant is not proved from the record. RSA No.2849 of 2008 4 No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. This Court is not inclined to exercise its power under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of any substantial question of law, in this second appeal. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 27, 2010 rk