RSA No.2549 of 1987 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2549 of 1987
Date of Decision: 8.3.2010
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar
1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes.
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
Alok Singh, J.
1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants challenging judgment dated 5.8.1985 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jalandhar by which learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land bearing Khasra Nos.1064 and 1065 and further challenged in the present appeal, is judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 24.4.1987 dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants.
2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos.1064 and 1065 along with other agriculture land. It was originally owned by his grand father. Now the plaintiff has raised construction over it since 1972 and is in possession of the same as owner. In the revenue record also the plaintiff has been shown to be owner in possession of the property in RSA No.2549 of 1987 2
dispute. It is stated that the defendants who have got no right or interest in the property in dispute are unauthorisedly claiming passage from Khasra Nos.1064 and 1065 on the eastern side. It is stated that the defendants are adamant to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the property in dispute. The defendant were many times asked not to do so, but no avail. Ultimately, the present suit was filed.
3. Defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein they took up various objections and contested the suit. It was stated that the plaintiff had got no locus standi to file the present suit. It was further pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable in the present form. It was further stated that the Civil Court had got no jurisdiction to try the present suit. It was stated that Smt Gurtejan Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh was in possession of the property adjacent to the land which is public street and part of the said public street had been encroached upon by said Smt. Gurtejan Kaur. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land adjoining the said encroachment. It was further stated that he Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, received complaints from the inhabitants of the locality regarding the said encroachment by Smt. Gurtejan Kaur. Accordingly the Building Inspector of the Corporation visited the site and after verifying the matter made a report that Smt. Gurtejan Kaur had encroachment on the Municipal street to the extent of 64' X 12' by constructing a boundary wall. Therefore, a notice under Section 246 (i) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 was issued to Smt Gurtejan Kaur. Notice under Section 269 (i) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 was also issued to Smt. Gurtejan Kaur. It was further stated that property in dispute is a public street and the plaintiff has got no right or interest therein.
4. Learned trial Court framed following issues:- RSA No.2549 of 1987 3
1. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP
4. Whether the site measuring 5 X 11 Karms within Khasra Nos.1064 and 1065 is a public street?OPD
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Case is covered by the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. Having recorded the concurrent findings of fact that defendant-Municipality has failed to prove that part of Khasra Nos.1064 and 1065 (disputed property) is a public street. It is further been observed by both the Courts below that Municipal Board could not show as to when alleged street was created. Both the courts below further observed that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property in dispute. In view of this no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
9. The present appeal is devoid of any merit, hence, appeal is dismissed.