Building plans can only be sanctioned if the applicant has undisputed rights over the land, and the sanction of a building plan does not confer ownership or any other rights over the land beneath the structure.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. All these cases bearing Nos. CWP No. 54 of 2019, CWP No. 654 of 2000, CWP No. 287 of 2001, RSA No. 452 of 2007, RSA No. 459 of 2007 and FAO No. 315 of 2002, were heard together and are being decided simultaneously. However, this Court is passing separate detailed judgments in each of these cases.

2. Seeking various reliefs, all revolving around the sanction of the additional building plan by Municipal Corporation Shimla in favor of 5th respondent, the Petitioner, whose land is adjacent to the property of 5th respondent, has come up before this Court asking for issuance of Mandamus by quashing not only the building plan (Annexure P-9) but also restoration of status quo ante for his demolished railing, and preparation of new field map.

3. The petitioner claims to be an owner in possession of land measuring 5 Biswas described in khasra no. 357 (Old 190), situated in Revenue village Bagog, (Near Summerhill), Tehsil and District Shimla, HP. As per the counsel for the petitioner, this land was purchased vide sale deed dated 21 Nov 1986, and the mutation was attested on 24 Nov 1986. The 5th Respondent Sh. Ravinder Parkash and his wife, Smt. Surekha, the 6th Respondent, are the owners in possession of the adjoining land, measuring 1-12 bighas (32 Biswas), described in khasra nos. 353 and 354 (Old 189), in the same revenue village. As per the counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents, they had purchased the land vide sale deed dated 1 July 1987.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record, including the written arguments filed by the Petitioner.

5. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner falls in the following three categories:

A. DISPUTE PERTAINING TO FENCE:

6. The Petitioner claims that the 5th Respondent had erected an iron fence between their boundaries, after proper demarcation done on 28-08-1990 and 9-11-1990, vide Annexures P-5 & P-6. However, the 5th Respondent claimed that the land beyond this fence also belongs to him. The Petitioner further contended that the 5th Respondent demolished the said iron fence through his Contractor, paving the way for the extension of his existing building.

7. Placing reliance upon the admission made by the 5th respondent vide Annexure P-5 and P-6, whereby he had admitted his satisfaction over the boundaries fixed and boundary posts erected by the Revenue officials, the Petitioner contends that he cannot blow hot and cold over the admissions once made.

8. The 5th respondent contended that he had raised an iron fence, but taking advantage of his absence, due to his posting, the petitioner demolished the said fence on 16.2.2000, which led to the registration of an FIR against him.

9. The case set up by the 5th and 6th respondents is specific to the extent that a civil suit no. 199/1 of 1995/1991, filed by them against the petitioner, about the encroachment was pending between the parties at the time of filing of the present writ petition. Thus, the present writ petition, for a similar relief is not maintainable.

10. To decide the dispute about the removal of iron fence, needs evidence, by examining witnesses, for which the writ Court is not an efficacious remedy. Consequently, this Court refrains itself from issuing such writ, because the controversy involves disputed questions of facts.

B. ERRONEOUS SETTLEMENT PLANS:

11. The petitioner pleaded that the 5th respondent lays his claim over the land adjoining his land, based upon erroneous field maps of Settlement Authorities, the 4th respondent herein. The response of the 5th respondent is that the petitioner is an encroacher over his land. While admitting the ownership of the petitioner over the land described in khasra no. 357, the 5th respondent alleged that the petitioner had built a portion of his house over the land belonging to him.

12. The stand of the Settlement Collector, the 4th respondent, on the Affidavit is that the Tehsildar Settlement had correctly prepared the Tatma Tafawat, accor