IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.09.2025 Anand Dev Yadav ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Municipal Council Rewari and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff No. 2 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The plaintiffs had filed the instant suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from demolishing construction of the plaintiffs over the suit property as described in the plaint and shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/1. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were owners in possession of suit property and had been in unbroken possession and had been residing in the suit premises since

1978.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in passing the impugned judgments, the learned Courts below have ignored the fact that the plaintiffs were in long and continuous possession of suit property right from the year 1978. This fact was very much within the knowledge of the respondent-authorities. Plaintiffs had incurred huge expenses over the suit property and had made concrete construction and had constructed a marriage banquet hall after taking into confidence of all local authorities. The said banquet hall is the only source of their livelihood.

4. The Administrator of Municipal Council, Rewari vide his letter No. 201-MCR dated 16.03.1994 had admitted possession of Banwari Lal i.e. father of the appellant over the suit property; and Deputy Commissioner Rewari had even offered/directed that the suit property be sold to the appellant @ Rs.1200 per sq.yds. In 2010, the Municipal Council/defendant No.1 had even passed a Resolution No. 7 dated 15.01.2010 to sell out the above plots of the Municipal Council to the father of the present appellant. However, on account of ill motive and grudge of some local residents including the defendants No. 2 to 10/private respondents herein, the said offer and Resolution have not been acted upon till date. It is submitted that the said sanction by Deputy Commissioner was never withdrawn; and even the Resolution dated 15.01.2010 has not been suspended till date by any competent authority of the Government. Plaintiffs were always ready and willing to purchase the suit property by paying requisite amount to the Government/Municipal Council, Rewari. However, these facts have not been correctly appreciated by learned Courts below who have totally misinterpreted the factual and legal position of the present case. Thus, the impugned judgments are based on conjectures and surmises.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the defendants have miserably failed to produce any document/ record to prove that the suit property was being used and meant for green belt. Furthermore, no evidence was produced by the defendants to prove that the suit property was ever used for any public common purpose or for any passage. On the contrary the plaintiffs have produced not only the relevant government orders permitting the sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs but also the necessary and requisite resolution of the Municipal Council, Rewari itself to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. However, all these evidence and records were discarded by the Ld. Lower Courts causing serious prejudice for the appellant.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had filed a specific application for producing the additional evidence before the Lower Ld. Appellate Court and therein the appellant had produced the copy of the Order dated 30.01.1996 whereby respondent No. 1 had sold out the land @ Rs. 1200 per square yard to a person who was exactly sim