The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to the relief of permanent injunction is dependent on the possession of the land reserved for a public park under the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme, and the plaintiff's admission regarding the possession influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 115 of 1994 (O&M), by which, the High Court has disposed of the said appeal by observing that the suit land in question under possession of the original plaintiff be also acquired in accordance with law and compensation be paid to the original plaintiff in accordance with law, Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association and Municipality, Thanesar have preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That after following the due procedure as required under the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1973) the State of Haryana sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No. 5 (unbuilt area) on 29.10.1975. Under the said Scheme, the suit land in question was reserved for public park. That respondent No. 1 herein – original plaintiff instituted the present suit being Civil Suit No. 29/1987 for permanent injunction only with respect to the land admeasuring 5 kanals and 12 marlas which was reserved for public park, contending, inter-alia, that though the Scheme was sanctioned in the year 1975, the same has not been used for a public park even after a period of five years and that the plaintiff continued to remain in possession. Therefore, the aforesaid suit was filed only to protect the possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit was filed on 26.12.1986. It was averred in the plaint that respondent No. 2 – Administrator, Municipality, Thanesar threatened to take possession and thereby disturb the possession of the plaintiff a week prior to the filing of the suit. It was submitted by the defendant in the written statement that as per Town Planning Scheme No. 5, the land has been reserved for a park and therefore, the Municipal Committee, Thanesar is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute as the same is reserved for a park. Therefore, the possession of the plaintiff to the extent of 5 kanals was denied. Both the parties led their evidence. On behalf of the defendant one Sher Singh, officer of the Municipal Committee came to be examined as DW-1. Before the learned Trial Court a communication dated 13.12.1983 addressed by the plaintiff to the Administrator was brought on record as exhibit D5 (the same shall be discussed hereinbelow). The learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and granted permanent injunction observing that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court granting permanent injunction and consequently, dismissed the suit. In second appeal, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has disposed of the appeal by observing that respondent No. 1 – original plaintiff is in possession and even if the scheme is implemented, the same may be acquired in accordance with law and to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. The High Court has disposed of the second appeal in terms of the above.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association as well as the Municipality, Thanesar, through its Administrator have preferred the present appeals.

3. It is the case on behalf of the appellants herein that in fact Town Planning Scheme No. 5 (unbuilt area) was implemented within a period of five years i.e., in the year 1980 itself. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that as such the possession of the land reserved for public park to the extent of 5 kanals was already taken over by the Municipal Committee. It is the further case on behalf of the appellants that as such the original plaintiff admitted in his communication i.e., exhibit D5 that the possession of the land reserved for the park had been tak