Municipal Committee vs Ram Kumar and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—Respondent Nos 1 to 9/ plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining appellants/ defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2/respondent No. 10 from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land measuring 71 Kanals 12 Marias situated in the urban area of Jalandhar. The defendants were threatening them to take forcible possession of the suit land in order to use the same as thoroughfare, thus necessitating the filing of the suit.

Defendant No. 1 denied the allegations made in the plaint. It was denied that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the disputed land. It was pleaded that u/s 171 (4) of the Punjab Municipal Act (for short the Act), the site had been declared as public street. The plaintiffs did not file any objection when the Municipal Committee declared the site as a public street and they were estopped from doing so. The suit was alleged to be incompetent in the absence of notice u/s 49 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit was also challenged. Defendant No. 2, Market Committee, Jalandhar pleaded that they had no concern with the disputed site and they have been improperly arrayed as defendant in the suit.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the property in dispute ? OPP

Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable ? OPD

Whether notice u/s 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, is necessary, if so to what effect ? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs are barred by their acts and conducts to file the present suit ? OPD

Whether the Civil Courts have no- jurisdiction to entertain the present suit ? OPD

Whether the suit is within time ? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ? OPD

Whether the plan of the property is necessary to be filed if so, its effect ? OPD

Whether the property in dispute is a public street ? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPD

Relief.

Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs; issue No. 2 to 8 were decided against the defendants; issue No. 9 was decided against the defendants; issue No. 10 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that the plaintiffs Were entitled to the injunction prayed for. On the basis of these findings the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs'' suit.

Defendant No. 1 unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in first appeal. The first appellate Court on evidence found that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land. It also found that suit land was not declared as public street by it.

I am not persuaded to take a different opinion than the one formed by the first appellate Court It is undisputed that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute. If any part of the property in suit has to be declared as public street, a proper procedure under the Act has to be followed, which has not been done in the instant case. The appeal is bereft of any merit.

For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.