IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 31.01.2025 Date of decision: 11.02.2025 HUKAM CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

..Appellant Versus M.C. BATHINDA ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for respondent.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. This regular second appeal has been filed challenging the correctness of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing appellant’s suit for grant of decree of permanent injunction.

2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

3. The appellant (plaintiff before the trial Court) sought decree of permanent injunction on the ground that he is the owner of the plot in question by virtue of sale deed executed by Sh. Babu Ram on 22.02.1973, on which he has constructed a factory building for installing Atta Chakki (flour mill), ‘Dal’ plant and oil expeller. The defendant-Municipal committee contested the suit while alleging that the plaintiff illegally and without permission has constructed a shed and boundary wall 20 to 55 feet on 02.03.1988, which was reported by the Building Inspector, when he visited the site on 02.03.1988. It was claimed that the suit property was part of the road as per the Town Planning Scheme No.3, Part II, which was duly sanctioned by the Punjab Government and is still in force in the area concerned. Moreover, the plaintiff has raised construction without seeking permission of the Municipal Committee.

4. Both the Courts upon reappreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the plot of the plaintiff is part of the road carved out in a duly sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No.3, Part II. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction decree.

5. This regular second appeal was admitted for regular hearing in the year 1996 and an interim order was passed restraining the defendants from demolishing the building.

6. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their able assistance perused the paperbook. 7. On 24.01.2024, the following order was passed:-

“The learned counsel representing the Municipal Corporation submits that the Town Planning Scheme No.03, was finally notified on 09.09.1983, which was upheld by the Division Bench in Municipal Committee (now Municipal Corporation), Bathinda vs. Partap Singh and another (LPA No.121 of 2008, decided on 26.11.2014) and Municipal Committee (Now Municipal Corporation), Bathinda vs. Bachan Singh through His LRs and another (LPA No.1461 of 2016, decided on 14.05.2024). She submits that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Yogendra Pal and others vs. Municipality Bathinda and another, 1994 SC 2550, was specifically held applicable prospectively.

The learned senior counsel representing the appellant prays for some time to examine the judgment passed by the Division Bench before assisting the court.

Adjourned to 31.01.2025.

To be listed in the urgent list.”

8. Learned Senior counsel representing the appellant contends that sanctioning of Town Planning Scheme by the Government on 09.09.1993 and issuance of final notification 09.09.1983 does not amount to completion of scheme. He further submits that no notice has been issued to the appellant before sanctioning the scheme and his right to property cannot be taken away in such manner.

9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pal and others Vs. Municipality, Bhatinda and others, AIR 1994 (Supreme Court), 2550, has held that the judgment will operate prospectively and the town planning scheme, which have already been completed shall not be disturbed. She submits that the town planning scheme was sanctioned by the State Government on 09.09.1983, whereas, the date of decision of the Supreme Court in

15.07.1994.

10. This Court has considered the submi