A Municipal Committee can only act through resolutions and unless by a resolution it authorizes somebody to file an appeal on its behalf, no appeal could be presented on behalf of the Committee.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Municipal Committee, Sirhind through Executive Officer, Sirhind, District Patiala, has fried the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.1.1980, passed by the Court of District Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the appeal of the Municipal Committee, holding that the same was incompetent in view of the fact that no resolution has been filed by the Committee before filing the appeal authorising any person much less Executive Officer to institute the appeal.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner; Shri Ishar Dass and Gian Chand filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Committee, Sirhind, Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Sirhind and the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Sirhind, alleging that defendants are interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties shown as ABCD in the Annexure-A, appended with the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the disputed site is a part of Ashoka Oil and Flour Mills (previously known as Ashoka Flour Industries), Sirhind Mandi, owned and belonging to the plaintiffs and they are in its peaceful possession. Their possession is hostile for the last more than 30 years and they have become the owners of the said plot by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs have even raised a pucca construction by investing Rs. 30,000/- over the disputed site as their adverse possession had matured into ownership and that defendants have no concern or connection with the same. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant committee without any right or lawful authority, had served a notice dated 17.6.1978 requiring the plaintiffs to demolish the construction within ten days failing which the defend ant-committee had threatened to demolish the same. According to the plaintiffs, this action on the part of the Committee was arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and even against the mandatory provisions of the Municipal Act as the suit property could not be demolished or acquired without payment of any compensation. Even the statutory notice under Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act, was not given. With the above broad allegations, the plaintiffs challenged the notice dated 17.6.1978.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants who pleaded that the Commit tee has every right to acquire the encroachment and it is not liable to pay any compensation. Notice was delivered to the plaintiffs perfectly in accordance with law.

4. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the written statement of the defendants in which they reiterated their allegations made in the plaint while denying those of the written statement.

5. The above pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute for the last more than 13 years and they have become owners by way of adverse possession? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction, prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs have spent the amount of Rs. 30,000/- regarding construction on the suit property, if so, to what effect? OPP

4. Whether the notice issued by the Municipal Committee, Sirhind, under Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act is void and illegal? OPD

5. Whether valid notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act has been given by the plaintiffs prior to filing this suit if not to what effect? OPP

6. Relief.

The parties led evidence in support of their case and ultimately the suit was decreed.

6 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Municipal Committee, Sirhind, through Executive Officer, Sirhind, filed the appeal before the first appellate Court who dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection taken up by the plaintiff-respondent that the appeal was not competent because no resolution had been passed by the Municipal Committee authorising the Executive Officer to file the appeal.