Civil Revision No.480 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.480 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.03.2009. Ved Pal ...Petitioner Versus XEN B &R, Jhajjar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The essential plea of the plaintiff-petitioner at the trial was that he is owner in possession of the property in suit which bears specific Khara No. and that the defendants-respondents were inclined to demolish a part of his house (which he had built on that property) under political pressure. The plaintiff-petitioner also applied for the grant of ad-interim stay restraining the demolition of a part of his house. The defendant-respondent averred that the portion to be demolished was, infact, an encroachment done by the plaintiff- petitioner on Government land. The plea, in the context, was that the plaintiff-petitioner has illegally constructed a wall on Government Civil Revision No.480 of 2009 -2- **** property. The reliance, in support of the averred plea, was placed upon a demarcation report which had been conducted by the Kanungo. The fact of encroachment by the plaintiff-petitioner is evident from the fact that the construction of his house is not in line with the other buildings on that road. A notice under Section under Section (2) of Section 12 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development Act), 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) had been served upon the plaintiff-petitioner in the context. It is noticed, in the impugned order recorded by the learned Trial Court itself, that the suit had been instituted on 10.12.2008. The demarcation report was obtained by the defendants-respondents on 11.12.2008. The notice under the Act was served upon the plaintiff-petitioner on 13.12.2008( It was received by his wife). Prior thereto, the defendants had made a request to the S.D.O.(Civil) for demarcation of the property in dispute memo No. 13153-54 dated 19.11.2008. On that basis, the learned Trial Court observed that the plaintiff-petitioner, after being cognizant of the proceedings for demarcation, opted to approach the Civil Court. The learned Trial Court further noticed that the plaintiff-petitioner did not even aver to have obtained demarcation (of the property in dispute) on his own before he proceeded to raise the construction of his house. The ad-interim plea was declined by the learned Trial Court by recording a finding that there is no prima facie case in his Civil Revision No.480 of 2009 -3- **** favour and the construction at the hands of defendants-respondents of Subana Kosli Road “is in progress” and that “construction of the road for the development of the society as well as of the nation is necessary.” Learned Ist Appellate Court also noticed that it was after receipt of the demarcation report that notice under the Act was served upon the plaintiff-petitioner. It also noticed that the defendants-respondents had obtained photographs to show that the construction raised was not in the line of other construction in the area. In view of the affirmative character of impugned finding and in view of the fact that I have not been persuaded to find any illegality or any perversity in the exercise of judicial discretion by the learned Trial Court and also the learned Ist Appellate Court, I do not feel called upon to interfere. If the plaintiff-petitioner had a grievance, he could have applied for the setting at naught of the report furnished by the Local Commissioner, by making a grievance thereof before the competent authority. The petition is plainly devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 23, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge