Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vs Balinder Bachan Singh (D) By Lrs.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 581

2004(4) Supreme 114
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan, JJ.
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Balinder Bachan Singh (D) by Lrs. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15340 of 1996
With
Civil Appeal No. 15341 of 1996
Decided on 28-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Anant Vijay Palli and Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : M.C. Dhingra, Advocate.

Headnote:Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-Section 192(2)-Municipal Corporation notified a Town Planning Scheme duly framed u/s 192(2) of the Act-To the said scheme, mother of respondents filed her objections-She had agreed to leave 25% of the land for certain common purposes like roads, park etc.-Scheme sanctioned and notified-Public land along with other land was developed as per scheme-Roads carved out, sewage as well as other facilities installed-Suit land was left as a park for the use of inhabitants of that colony-After the scheme had attained finality, suit filed by respondents stating that their mother had no interest or right in the property and that they were the owners-Respondents sought for perpetual injunction restraining appellant Corporation from taking forcible possession-Whether respondents were entitled to any relief-(No).
       Held : Under Section 192 of the Act the Municipal Corporation is entitled to draw up a building scheme for the built area and the town planning scheme for un-built area which may among other things provide for the restriction of the erection or re-erection of buildings, the prescription of a building line on either side or both sides of any street existing or proposed, and the amount of land in such unbuilt area which is to be utilised for public purposes including the use as public streets. For every locality green spaces and green belts have to be provided to provide lung space to the residents of the locality. A provision for green park was made by the Municipal Corporation keeping in view the minimum requirement to provide open/green space to the residents of the locality. Rajinder Kaur mother of the plaintiffs-respondents herself had submitted a lay out plan which comprised the present suit land. She had herself agreed to leave 25 per cent of the area under the scheme to be used by the inhabitants of the locality for common purposes including the open space area which is in dispute. The documentary evidence which has come on record in the form of the original scheme as well as the documents D1 to D38 and the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner conclusively shows that the suit land measuring 3.16 kanals was left in the scheme to be used as open space for the use of the residents of the locality. (Paras 16 and 17)
       The photographs produced also show that the land is lying vacant and is being used by the inhabitants for common purposes. It may be noted that the plots carved out in the scheme were sold by Rajinder Kaur as well as her sons including the plaintiffs-respondents. Rajinder Kaur and plaintiffs/respondents could not have sold the land without getting the scheme sanctioned as plots. It is well-known and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that residential plots sell at a much higher price than the agricultural land. To sell the land as plots, a part of the land has to be left to provide for common purposes such as roads, community centre, schools and parks. Having taken advantage of selling the plots in a developed colony and charging a higher price, which were purchased by the inhabitants with the understanding that civic amenities including the park were well provided for, the plaintiffs/respondents cannot be permitted to turn around to claim the land left in the scheme for being used as a park as their personal property. (Para 18)
       In our considered view, the land measuring 3.16 kanals was left in the scheme for the use of the residents of the locality. Contentions raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents that the suit land did not form part of the town planning scheme or the land continued to be owned by the plaintiffs-respondents and that they were in exclusive possession there of cannot be accepted. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 11th July, 1996 passed in R.S.A. No. 2315 of 1988 whereby the High Court has upheld the judgment of reversal of the Additional District & Sessions Judge thereby decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents ).

2. Civil Appeal No. 15340 of 1996 has been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Civil Appeal No. 15341 of 1996 has been filed by the inhabitants of the area of the suit land. The facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 15340 of 1996.

3. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant ), notified a Town Planning Scheme Area No. 6 Part-IIIA, known as Sampuran Colony, Model Gram, Ludhiana, duly framed under Section 192(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short the Act ). Sampuran Singh is the father of Respondent Nos. 1 (D) through Lrs. and 2 and husband of Smt. Rajinder Kaur. In the Scheme, the land of Smt. Rajinder Kaur, (since deceased) respondent No.3 and mother of the respondents was also included. Notice was published in the newspapers inviting objections to the proposed scheme. Shrimati Rajinder Kaur raised certain objections in which she wanted certain changes and adjustments to be made in the scheme. Executive Officer of the appellant vide letter dated 29th June, 1968 called upon Smt. Rajinder Kaur to come to his office on 5th July, 1968 for considerations of the objections filed by her. Taking into consideration the objections filed and having heard the objector the Scheme was approved with certain modifications. She had agreed to leave 25 per cent of the land for common purposes such as roads and parks. She gave her own design for earmarking plots and shopping area. The Local Government Department, Punjab in exercise of its power under Section 192 of the Act accorded sanction to the Town Planning Scheme approved and submitted by the Municipal Corporation. After the Scheme was duly notified by the Government, the public land along with other land was developed by the appellant as per Scheme. Roads were carved out, sewage as well as water facilities were installed and the suit land i.e. 3 kanals 16 marlas which was to form a green park was also developed. The dispute in these appeals pertain to land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas which was reserved under the Scheme as open space to develop a park to provide lung space to the inhabitants of the locality.

4. In the year 1976, when the Scheme had attained finality and steps in pursuance thereto had been completed, plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 & 2 who are none other than the sons of the Smt. Rajinder Kaur instituted the present suit claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas and alleging that the appellants were bent upon taking forcible possession of the suit land, filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from taking forcible possession of the same.

5. Appellants filed their written statement stating that the suit land had already been developed as a park as per the Town Planning Scheme and was being used as such by the inhabitants of the locality. It was asserted that before developing the area, statement of ownership was prepared according to which Rajinder Kaur, respondent No.3 was recorded as owner of the suit land. The cultivating possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was denied. It was alleged that the Town Planning Scheme of the area was notified and the plaintiffs-respondents did not raise any objection and after the sanction of the Town Planning Scheme possession was taken by the Corporation of the common areas for development as per scheme. Roads and park were developed as per scheme which were being used as such by the inhabitants. On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document