Municipal Corporation, Patiala vs Baljinder Kaur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Municipal Corporation, Patiala – Petitioner
Versus
Baljinder Kaur – Respondent
CR NO. 5295 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate; For the Petitioner

Headnote:(A) Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 - Sections 269(1) and 270 - Ad-interim injunction - Municipal Corporation restrained from interfering with construction contrary to sanctioned site plan - Plaintiff violated site plan by constructing unauthorized structure, leading to notices issued by Corporation - Court upheld injunction but clarified that Corporation may act if usage occurs without completion certificate. (Paras 2.1 - 6)

(B) Judicial discretion - Courts must examine legality of construction as per sanctioned plan and enable enforcement of statutory provisions safeguarding municipal regulations. (Paras 2.2 and 4)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff/respondent received a sanctioned building plan that mandated open spaces but commenced unauthorized construction, leading to enforcement notices from the Municipal Corporation. The initial injunction allowed continuous construction despite violations.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Municipal Corporation retains authority to act legally should the constructed shop be utilized without completion certificate.

Issues: The primary issue centered on unauthorized construction by the respondent and the legal authority of the Municipal Corporation to act against violations of the sanctioned plan.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that while ad-interim injunctions may be applied, they do not preclude the Corporation from enforcing legal compliance, especially regarding the issuance of essential permits.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. legal context of injunction and construction compliance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. no prejudice to respondent by not issuing notice. (Para 3)
3. corporation's authority to act on violations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. final dismissal of petition and closure of applications. (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

Petition herein is for setting aside order dated 02.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala as well as order dated 01.04.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned First Appellate Court affirming order of learned Trial Court, whereby application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/respondent for grant of ad-interim injunction, was allowed and petitioner Municipal Corporation was restrained from interfering in the construction work being done by plaintiff/respondent.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the revision petition.

2.1. Plaintiff/respondent had got residential building plan sanctioned and as per the sanctioned site plan (Annexure P-1), at the front 12 feet space had to be left open and thereafter the residential construction has to be started. However, plaintiff/respondent in utter violation of the sanctioned site plan has started raising construction by covering the open space required to be left in front of the plot and instead of rooms, has constructed a hall with clear intention of using it for commercial purposes. Staff of the Municipal Corporation-petitioner immediately swung into action and issued notice dated 08.09.2017 under Section 270 of the PUNJAB MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT , 1976 to stop the construction of the hall against the sanctioned site plan. Thereafter, another notice dated 11.09.2017 under Section 269 (1) of the PUNJAB MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT , 1976 was issued to plaintiff/respondent for violation made by him.

2.2. Aggrieved against the said notices the plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from dismantling any part of the said house. Ld. Trial Court granted Ex Parte ad interim injunction vide its order dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure P-3). Under the garb of said injunction, plaintiff/respondent continued with unauthorized construction against the sanctioned site plan.

2.3. Upon notice, the Municipal Corporation-petitioner appeared and filed a detailed written statement wherein it was specifically alleged that plaintiff/respondent was raising illegal construction against the site plan. However, vide impugned order dated 02.07.2018 (Annexure P-5), Ld. Trial Court allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/respondent. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner corporation preferred an appeal, but the same was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 01.04.2022 (Annexure P-6). Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent as no prejudice would be caused to him. Notice to respondent is thus dispensed with.

4. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Corporation and gone through the record, it transpires that petitioner Corporation has not been restrained from taking action in accordance with law against plaintiff/respondent in case the suit property, which is stated to be a commercial shop, is put to use without seeking completion certificate, which is a pre-requisite before the same is put to use.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-Corporation states that the Corporation has not issued any completion certificate qua the shop in question.

6. Being so, since the petitioner-Corporation is not restrained by learned Courts below from taking action against putting the shop in use without completion certificate, it has liberty to do so i.e. to take action in accordance with law if the shop is put to use without obtaining the competition certificate.

7. Dismissed.

8. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document