Municipal Board vs Praveen Kumari

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—This second appeal filed by the defendant is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Civil Original Appeal No. 45/2007 "Praveen Kumari W/o. Jain Prakash v. Municipal Board, Hanumangarh" who allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hanumangarh in Civil Original Suit No. 25/2007 "Praveen Kumari W/o. Jain Prakash v. Municipal Board, Hanumangarh" by which, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Praveen Kumari seeking perpetual injunction in relation to the dispute of land measuring 52x45 ft. situated at Chak 51 NGC, Stone No. 123/256 of Murabba No. of Kila No. 25, Hanumangarh.

The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was one of the defendant before the learned two Courts below, against the reversal of the findings of the learned Trial Court by the learned First Appellate Court.

The appellant-Municipal Board, Hanumangarh, has filed the present second appeal in this Court on 02.07.2008. The civil suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant Municipal Board was filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) Praveen Kumari in the Trial Court with the averments that the defendant Municipal Board, Hanumangarh had no right to interfere with the possession of the agricultural land in question belonging to the plaintiff, since the land is agricultural in nature and the same is not notified to be falling within the municipal limits. The defendant-Municipal Board had filed a detailed written statement to the plaint of the plaintiff.

After framing of the relevant issues arising out of the plaint and written statement and after recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court, however, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The relevant portion of the discussion made by the learned Trial Court is quoted herein below for ready reference:--

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree aforesaid dated 27.09.2007, the plaintiff-Praveen Kumari filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, namely, Civil Appeal No. 45/2007 "Praveen Kumari v. Municipal Board, Hanumangarh" which was allowed on 25.04.2008, while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2007 of the learned Trial Court holding that since the land in question was not clearly notified to be falling with the limits of the Municipal Board, therefore, the Municipal Board had no jurisdiction to interfere with the possession of the land in question of the plaintiff. The relevant portion of the discussion and the final order made by the learned First Appellate Court is quoted herein below for ready reference:--

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court below, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant-Municipal Board, Hanumangarh. In the circumstances of the case, the findings of facts about the defendant Municipal Board having no jurisdiction over the land in question and having no right to interfere with the possession of the land in question owned by the plaintiff, after correctly appreciating the evidence led before it, cannot be said to be perverse, in any manner, and the said order does not give rise to any substantial question of law in this second appeal and this second appeal of the appellant-defendant-Municipal Board, Hanumangarh deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. The findings of facts recorded by the learned First Appellate Court for reversing the findings of the learned Trial Court appears to be just and reasonable since the Municipal Board, Hanumangarh failed to lead any evidence to establish that the area in question was notified by the Government is clearly fell within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board. The finding of the learned First Appellate Court that without jurisdiction over the land in question, the Municipal Board or its officials could not naturally interfere with the possession and construction of the plaintiff-respondent appears to be reasonable and justified. The present second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant-Municipal Board, Hanumangarh is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.