IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2025 Shiv Charan ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Municipal Committee Bawal and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Shubham Saroha, Advocate for Mr. Shiv Raj Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff has laid challenge to the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit preferred by the appellant for permanent injunction (to the effect that the defendants be restrained from removing the wooden khokha as described in the plaint, of which the appellant is the owner in possession), has been dismissed.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is the ‘plaintiff’; and the respondents are the ‘defendants’.

3. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims himself to be in possession of the wooden khokha/shop in dispute since 1989. The said shop in dispute is stated to be existing on the property of one Rajiv Kumar. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant-Municipal Committee had threatened the plaintiff to remove the wooden khokha/shop (property in dispute) from the spot by 28.03.2011. Thus, the present suit was filed on 09.04.2011 seeking injunction against the defendants, restraining them from ejection of the plaintiff from the property in dispute.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendants/Municipal Committee by filing written statement averring therein that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts. It was alleged that the plaintiff had encroached upon rasta sare aam and constructed the property in dispute. The plaintiff had illegally encroached upon the common rasta which vests in the Municipal Committee. It was also pointed out that the Government of Haryana had once removed the khokha of the plaintiff. However, he had illegally constructed it again on common rasta.

5. On the basis of evidence brought on record, the case of the defendants was found to be correct and true. As such, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.08.2015.

6. The plaintiff went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari. The said appeal was also dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2017, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2015. Hence, the present second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contends that the appellant had duly proved his case that he is in continuous possession of the suit property without any interruption. The appellant is running his livelihood and is solely dependent on the said shop/khokha since the past

30 years. It is submitted that the appellant had duly proved his ownership and possession over the suit property/khokha by way of Ex.PW1/1 site plan; Ex.PW6/1 copy of loan granted by Harijan Kalyan Nigam; and Ex.PW6/3 copy of clearance certificate issued by the Harijan Kalyan Nigam. It is contended that these documents clearly prove that appellant has obtained loan regarding general store on 02.06.1988, after which the said shop has been continuously run by the appellant in the khokha in dispute. The existence is also proven since the year 1988. Even at present, at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is in possession since about last 24 years. As such, the respondent-Municipal Committee had no right to remove the said wooden khokha illegally by use of power. Further, in case the appellant is dispossessed from his shop, his family will be on road as he belongs to very poor family and he is not in a position to earn his livelihood by any other mode.

8. Ld. Counsel further submits that there was nothing on record to indicate that the khokha of the appellant existed in alleged rasta sare aam as alleged by the respondent-Municipal Committee. It is submitted that in passing the impugned judgments, the learned Court