Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Respondent alongwith Sant Nirankari Mandal, Gobindgarh, upon receipt of a notice Under Section 220 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (in short the Act), calling upon the Sant Nirankari Mandal to demolish Nirankari Bhawah, filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that the appellant and its administrator be restrained from demolishing the property, in dispute and also not to interfere in the said property. It was case of the respondent-plaintiff that construction was raised about five years back, when an earlier suit filed by the respondent entered into a compromise. Thereafter, even a resolution was passed by the appellant-municipal committee with a recommendation that property, in dispute, be leased out to Sant Nirankari Mandal for a period of 99 years. Under these circumstances, it was alleged that issuance of notice was not as per law. In written statement, the appellant-defendant averred that the land belongs to it and the construction thereon has been made forcibly and without any permission from the municipal committee. Passing of the resolution was not denied. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence of the parties, framed the following relevant issues:

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of committee, has vehemently contended that the appellate Court below has gone wrong in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, by observing that the property, in dispute (the plot, over which construction has been raised), was not in the ownership of the municipal committee. He has referred to documents on record to say that the appellate Court below has not looked into evidence and has decided to the contrary in a very arbitrary manner. He further argued that the appeal filed by the respondent was not competent as no resolution passed by Sant Nirankari Mandal, which is a registered body, was brought on record. It was further argued that the suit filed, was in a representative capacity, as the permission was not sought from the Court to file the said suit, the same was not maintainable.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties, following substantial questions of law were framed:

(i) Whether finding given by the appellate Court below that the appellant is not owner of the property, in dispute, is contrary to the admission made by the respondent and also evidence on record.
(ii) Whether injunction can be granted in favour of a tress-passer and also in a case where construction has been raised, without getting any building plan sanctioned, under the Act.

6. This Court feels that the appellate Court below has committed a grave error while opining in paragraph No. 4 of its judgment that as per admitted position "site in dispute" does not belong to the municipal committee. It is proved on record and not controverted before this Court that even, as per case of the respondent, the plot underneath the construction in dispute was in ownership of the municipal committee. In the plaint, it was specific case of the respondent, as is apparent from the averments made in paragraph Nos. 5 and 9 that the municipal committee/the appellant was owner of the property, in dispute. It was specifically averred and urged that the plot, in dispute, was given to Sant Nirankari Mandal by the municipal committee, on the basis of a compromise, which was entered into between the parties in an earlier suit. It has further been stated that the municipal committee, by passing a resolution, has recommended to the government, to 'lease out plot, in dispute, to Sant Nirankari Mandal, for a period of 99 years. It was further stated that the respondent-plaintiff has raised construction over the site, belonging to the municipal committee, with the full knowledge and in the presence of its officials. Fact that municipal committee is owner of the property, in dispute, was not even controverted before this Court, at the time of arguments. It has also come on record that DW1, Licence Inspector, has brought in Court registers of immovable properties of the municipal committee, wherein it was mentioned that the property, in dispute, is in the ownership of the municipal committee. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the Court below has gone wrong to say that the municipal committee was not owner of the property, in dispute. Opinion given by the appellate Court below was contrary to the evidence on record.

11. In view of the facts, mentioned above, this Court feels that the respondent was not entitled to grant of equable relief of injunction, which was wrongly given to him by the appellate Court below.

12. There is also substantial force in argument raised by counsel for the appellant that, as the appeal was not filed before the appellate Court below, by a competent person, the same was required to be dismissed. Record reveals that the notice, under challenge, was sent to Sant Nirankari Mandal, Mandi Gobindgarh, which is a registered body, through Gian Chand, for removal of encroachment. At that time, the present respondent Gian Chand and Sant Nirankari Mandal both, filed the suit, which was dismissed. However, appeal was filed only by Gian Chand and as such the Sant Nirankari Mandal had suffered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, against it. Respondent Gian Chand has no independent interest in the property, in dispute. He is acting only as parmukh of the said institution. When appeal was filed, no resolution passed by Sant Nirankari Mandal, a registered body, was placed on record. As that institution has not challenged the dismissal of the suit, this Court feels that the appeal filed by Gian Chand alone was not competent and the same has wrongly been entertained by the appellate Court below.