IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 02.02.2026 Pronounced on: 19.02.2026 Uploaded on: 20.02.2026 Harbans Singh …Appellant Versus Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Udeyveer Singh Brar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant- plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant/Municipal Committee was allowed and the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 04.03.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Hoshiarpur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, was set aside.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The facts, as culled out from the record, are that the appellant claims to have purchased 10 marlas of land forming part of Khasra No. 800 (total measuring 11 kanals 8 marlas), situated in Mohalla Premgarh, Hoshiarpur, vide registered sale deed (Ex.P1) dated 19.02.1988 (registered on 20.12.1988) from one Parkash Singh, a co-sharer in the said khasra. The appellant asserts that he raised construction (a room and boundary walls) on the suit plot in early 1989 without obtaining prior sanction from the respondent-Municipal Committee. He further claims to have obtained water and sewerage connections from the respondent-Municipal Committee upon payment of dues, and resided therein without objection until the impugned notice dated 28.02.1990 under Sections 195, 195-A and 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was issued, alleging unauthorised construction and directing demolition of the same. The appellant- plaintiff challenged the said notices by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The respondent-Municipal Committee contested the suit, contending that the suit land falls within Town Planning Scheme No. 13, sanctioned by the President of India vide notification dated 28.12.1987 (Ex. D6), and is reserved as a green park adjoining a public road. The construction was detected as unauthorized on 27.02.1990 during an inspection by the Building Inspector namely Darshan Singh Walia (PW1), who submitted the report (Ex. D1) to the Municipal committee, leading to notice dated 28.02.1990 under Sections 195, 195-A, 172, and subsequently 220 of the Act. It was pleaded that no site plan was submitted for sanction, the appellant is a mere co-sharer in the undivided khasra without exclusive possession, and the Committee has the statutory power to restrict land use in unbuilt areas without acquiring ownership or paying compensation.

4. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings and the competing claims of the parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination, with a view to secure a precise, coherent, and legally structured adjudication of the controversies arising in the matter:-

1. Whether the notice dated 28.02.1990 issued under sections 195, 195-A and Section 172 of Punjab Municipal Committee Act is illegal, and Void etc? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction Prayed for? OPP

3. Relief.

5. Both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in substantiation of their respective claims and defences. Upon the culmination of the evidentiary proceedings, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 04.03.1994, holding the impugned notice illegal on the grounds that the construction was completed in 1989, water and sewerage connections were provided by the respondent-defendant (implying condonation), and no violation of rules was established. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favor of the appellant-plaintiff. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so rendered by the learned Trial Court, th