2019 Supreme(P&H) 2192
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Municipal Committee/council, Jalalabad(w) - Appellant
Versus
Vimla Devi (now Deceased) Through Her Lr And Others - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 4242 of 2019
Decided On : 19-11-2019
Puneet Kansal, Advocate, Nikhita Kansal, Advocate, Vikas Bahl, Advocate, C.M. Munjal, Advocate, Priyanka Kansal, Advocate
The judgment emphasizes the finality of judgments, the principle of res judicata, and the obligation to prevent undue enrichment through the abuse of legal process.
Headnote:
Limitation - Land Acquisition - Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Doctrine of Merger
Fact of the Case:
The Municipal Committee/Council utilized the land of respondents No.1 and 2 for carving out streets without acquiring the same. The respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but later modified by the Lower Appellate Court. The High Court directed the Municipal Committee/Council to assess and pay compensation to the respondents. The Municipal Committee/Council filed multiple appeals and review petitions against these orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Municipal Committee/Council's conduct was malicious and illegal, and it attempted to raise the plea of limitation at a late stage despite acknowledging the claim of the decree holders multiple times. The Court emphasized the finality of judgments and the principle of res judicata, dismissing the revision petition and imposing costs on the Municipal Committee/Council.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the utilization of land without acquisition, assessment and payment of compensation, and the plea of limitation raised by the Municipal Committee/Council at a late stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the principle of finality of judgments, the doctrine of res judicata, and the obligation to prevent undue enrichment through the abuse of legal process. It also highlighted the acknowledgment of the claim by the State and the malicious conduct of the Municipal Committee/Council.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to respondents No.1 and 2/decree holders. In the event of non-payment of costs, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner/Municipal Committee/Council has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Executing Court/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalalabad(W), vide which the application filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor for dismissal of the execution petition filed by the decree holders/respondents No.1 and 2 for enforcement of the decree for mandatory injunction being time barred was dismissed.
2. Some facts are necessary to be noticed. In the year 1979, Municipal Committee/Council, Jalalabad had taken the land of respondents No.1 and 2 for carving out streets without acquiring the same. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for mandatory injunction, directing the Municipal Committee/Council, Jalalabad for implementing the building scheme Nos.1 and 2 after assessing the compensation as per demarcation made by Patwari on 27.05.1985 after removing the illegal construction made by the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 in the shape of shop on the land of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein with the consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the Municipal Committee/Council, Jalalabad from making construction on the land of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 without demarcation and from demolishing the construction made by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2.
3. Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1993 merely on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to establish how much land was acquired and further if at all, the plaintiffs wanted the compensation for the land, they could move the proper Forum for compensation. Trial Court further recorded a finding that the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted since there was no breach of obligation specially when the plaintiffs have their legal remedies before the appropriate authority who has acquired the land for assessment of the compensation and for payment of the same.
4. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs before the Lower Appellate Court, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1999 passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Municipal Committee/Council was directed to implement the building plan in letters and spirit.
5. Plaintiff/Respondents No.1 and 2 filed RSA No.1871 of 2000 in the High Court. The said regular second appeal was disposed of on 12.05.2000 with certain directions to be complied with, within six months. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
"After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 19.11.1999 requires some clarification/modification. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the Municipal Committee, Jalalabad formulated a scheme, but failed to implement the same in letter and spirit. Directions were accordingly given rightly by the first Appellate Court that Municipal Committee is directed to implement the scheme in letter and spirit.
The grouse of the plaintiff appellants is that in spite of the fact that it is the admitted case of the Municipal Committee that the land of the plaintiff appellants is being utilized by it for the purpose of streets, but no provision for compensation has been made nor any compensation has been paid to them.
The learned counsel for the appellants states that his clients would be satisfied if directions are given to the Municipal Committee that if it has utilized the land of the plaintiffs, either it should pay the compensation or should take suitable steps within a reasonable time for the payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. I find genuineness in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. In these circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of with the directions to Municipal Committee, Jallalabad that if the land of the plaintiffs has been utilized in order to lay out the streets and it wants to acquire that area for laying