JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are joint owners in possession of the land measuring about 28 Marlas as fully described in the head note of the plaint; and entered as such in the Jamabandi for the year 2007-08; and that there does not exist any public Park or public passage in the said land; and the plaintiffs have every right to raise the construction in the aforesaid land; and for Permanent Injunction as consequential relief restraining the defendants from claiming the existence of any part or passage in the aforesaid land from carving out any passage or putting concrete for constructing and brick paving or bitumen paving the same or creating any part in the aforesaid land, has been dismissed by both the Courts blow.

2. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2019. However, notice has not yet been issued in the same as since 2019, the matter has been adjourned multiple times either due to non-appearance of, or at request of ld. counsel for the appellants.

3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants are the plaintiffs'; and the respondents are the defendants'.

4. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiffs were co-owners to the extent of 20 Kanals in various Khasra numbers including khasra numbers mentioned in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiffs have sold some part of their holdings. At present, plaintiffs are in possession of the land/plots as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint and shown in red and marked as A.B.C.D. in the site plan. The area now falls in the extension of Gautam Nagar Abadi. The plaintiffs have been in possession of this land and have fixed a barbed wire around the plot, which is about 20 years old.

5. It was the contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the disputed property does not fall in any Town Planning Scheme and official of the defendant/Municipal Committee now Municipal Corporation, has been wrongly claiming this land to be falling in the Town Planning Scheme No.3 Part-IV. To the best of the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the said Scheme was never finalized and has not been notified. A day before filing the present suit, officials of the defendant Committee threw a notice dated 13.04.2010 at the shop of the plaintiff No.1, when he was not available there. In the said notice, it was alleged that plaintiff No.1 had encroached the land by affixing barbed wire. However, subsequently, it was revealed that defendant Committee is claiming the entire suit property as passage and public park being a part of Town Planning Scheme No.3 Part-IV. It is reiterated that suit land is not part of any Town Planning Scheme nor has any compensation been awarded to the plaintiffs or any alternative land given to them. As such, plaintiffs have not encroached upon the public property rather they are in possession of suit property since 20 years as co-owners. Accordingly, it was prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the land measuring about 28 Marlas as depicted in the head note of the plaint; as well as declaration to the effect that there does not exist any public park or public passage in the suit land; and for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant-Committee from claiming the existence of any park or passage and from carving out any such passage by puffing concrete or raising construction or brick paving or bitumen paving the same or creating any part in the aforesaid land be passed against the defendant Committee.

6. Upon notice, the defendant-Municipal Committee appeared and filed written statement questioning the maintainability of the suit. On merits, it was stated that the Scheme in question