The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for injunction was not barred solely based on the absence of notice under Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. The court emphasized the need to consider public interest and prevent the perpetuation of illegal construction when granting injunction in such cases.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. This second appeal arises from a suit for injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiffs to restrain the respondent-Municipal Committee from enforcing its notice dated 27,1.1994 under Sections 208/209 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act), requiring the plaintiffs to remove constructions raised without any sanctioned plan and also from raising further construction,

2. Case of the appellants is that they are owners of property called Liberty Complex for the last many years and started construction of front portion abutting GT road after demolishing a portion of the existing construction. It is further stated that construction had been completed in March, 1993 on the ground floor as well as the first floor. Thereafter, notice was given on 27.1.1994 which was beyond six months from the date of completion of construction. The property was duly assessed to house tax.

3. The suit was contested by submitting that construction has been raised without any sanction and notice was within six months of construction. It was also denied that the plaintiffs were paying house tax.

4. The trial court decreed the suit inter-alia on the ground that notice was issued only to Harish Kumar and not to all the owners; the defendants failed to prove that illegal construction was within six months of the date of notice and also details of the illegal construction were not given.

5. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the view taken by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court held that mere omission to mention number of building could not be held to be fatal as no number had yet been allotted and no information was given to the Municipal Committee as to who was the owner as admitted by PW2 Adhish Gupta. DW1 Lajpat Rai deposed that notice was sent after receiving a report from Lalit Kumar, Junior Engineer and after verifying the property at the site. DW3 Lalit Kumar, Junior Engineer deposed that the notice was issued after visit to the site and construction continued inspite of the notice. It was observed that plaintiffs were not able to show any site plan nor did they produce any mason or witness to show the actual date of construction. The property was situated in municipal limits and no receipt of house tax was produced. It was also held that no notice under Section 52 of the 1973 Act had been served.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the lower appellate court is erroneous while the trial court rightly decreed the suit. He submitted that Section 52 of the 1973 Act did not apply when suit was for injunction. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on decision of this court in Raj Masih v. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, 1987 S.L.J. 127, wherein it was held that availability of remedy of appeal did not bar the jurisdiction of civil court if order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also relied upon decision of this court in Joginder Pal and Anr. v. Mohan Lal Jain and Anr., 1989(1) C.L.J. 226, wherein it was held that injunction suit could be filed even without notice. He next relied on judgment of this court in Municipal Committee, Hissar v. Chaudhary Sat Pal, 1987(2) C.L.J. 358 to the effect that if notice is vague without giving details of the suit building, the court could grant injunction against its enforcement. In Amar Singh v. Municipal Committee, Hisar, 1984 C.L.J. 27, it was held that if construction is made six months before issuing of notice, notice was illegal and injunction could be issued to restrain the committee from enforcement of notice. In Dalu Ram v Municipal Committee, Hissar, (1971)73 P.L.R. 367, it was observed that notice of demolition of unauthorised construction could be given only within six months of construction.

7. Learned counsel for the Municipal Committee submitted that a prior notice under Section 52 was mandatory in absence of which no suit