Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2218
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad - Appellants
Versus
Bed Ram And Others - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 3843 of 2014(O&M)
Decided On : 16-09-2019
Ms. Balwinder Kaur Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate, for the Respondents
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961, in determining the ownership of the suit property.
Headnote:
Municipal Corporation - Permanent Injunction - Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, Section 408A - The court discussed the provisions of Section 408A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961, and their interpretations in relation to the ownership of the suit property. The court relied on previous decisions and held that the suit property did not vest in the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, to restrain them from taking action against the plaintiffs on the basis of a notice under Section 408A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 in respect to the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and peaceful possession of the suit property, which was disputed by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit based on the dismissal of similar suits challenging the ownership of the Municipal Corporation. However, the appeal court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, relying on previous decisions related to the ownership of the suit property and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to permanent injunction, maintainability of the suit, time-barred nature of the suit, jurisdiction of the civil court, res-judicata, cause of action, and estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretations of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961, in determining the ownership of the suit property. It also considered previous decisions related to similar disputes and found that the suit property did not vest in the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court, which decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. - Appellants - Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad are aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 11.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby judgment and decree dated 25.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad has been set aside and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed in their favour. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that, the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the appellants/defendants from taking any action against the plaintiffs/respondents on the basis of a notice under Section 408A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 in respect to the suit property. Further restraint upon the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession and demolition of the suit property as described in the plaint, was sought. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs/respondents and their ancestors were residents and proprietors of village Unchagaon, Tehsil Ballabgarh. They claim to be owners of the agricultural land as described in the plaint. Plaintiffs and their ancestors claimed to be owners-in-possession of the portion of the land of Shamlat Deh meant for manure pits (Gadda Khad) bearing part of Khasra No.46/17/2 within the revenue estate of village Unchagaon for the last 60 years. It is pleaded that the land which was previously used by their ancestors, is now used by the plaintiffs for placing manure (Khad), tethering catties and placing bongas, botoras etc. for the last so many years. The plaintiffs also constructed a room for parking the tractor and storing articles used for agricultural purposes. It is further pleaded that the suit land never vested in the Gram Panchayat of village Unchagaon. The land is outside Abadi Deh and was used as Gitwar for manure pits even before the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961. The Municipal Corporation has no concern, whatsoever, with the suit property and the entries in the revenue record reflecting Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to be the owner of the suit land, it is stated, are wrong, illegal, null and void qua the rights of the plaintiffs. Mutation No.5759 is claimed to be illegal, null and void and did not create any right or interest in favour of the appellants/defendants. It is pleaded that the Patwari and other officials of the Municipal Corporation came to the suit property and threatened the plaintiffs to vacate the same within two days. Hence, suit was filed.
2. Appellants/defendants contested the suit. Various preliminary objections were taken and on merits, it was denied that the plaintiffs or their ancestors were owners-in-possession of the land bearing part of Khasra No.46/17/2 which was Shamlat Deh, meant for manure pits. It is denied that mutation No.4759 is wrong and illegal. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
3. Following issues were framed by the learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties: -
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
3. Whether the present suit is time barred and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone? OPD
4. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 408(c) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994? OPD
5. Whether the present suit is barred u/s 11 of CPC as res-judicata? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit due to his own act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD
8. Relief.
4. Evidence was led by both the parties in support of their respective claims.
5. Learned trial court on considering the evidence on record placed reliance upon the decisions in suits titled as 'Sham v. Municipal Corpora
