Parkash Chand Sahota vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant regular second appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.08.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar-whereby judgment and decree dated 24.12.1984 passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar have been set aside and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that the house of the appellant-plaintiff was included by the respondent-defendant in a scheme framed by the defendant. There were several houses in the area. The respondent-defendant allegedly exempted the constructed houses from the said scheme vide letter dated 18.02.1977. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the respondent-defendant with mala fide intention issued a wrong notice addressed to one K.K. Atri for demolishing the house of the appellant-plaintiff. This action of the respondent-defendant gave rise to cause of action to file the present civil suit. On notice, the respondent-respondent appeared and filed a written statement submitting that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit; he was in unauthorized possession over the site in dispute; plaintiff is neither owner nor he has any interest or title whatsoever in the land. The house had been constructed unauthorizedly in an approved scheme area.

The trial Court after perusal of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-

Whether the house of the plaintiff was exempted vide letter dated 18.02.1977 and the notice regarding demolition is mala fide, illegal and without jurisdiction? OPP

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

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of action has accrued to him? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD

Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice u/s. 80 C.P.C. and u/s 98 of the Town Improvement Act? OPD

Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP

Relief.

The learned trial Court afforded opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence. Thereafter, the learned trial Court recorded a finding on issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff; issue Nos. 3 to 6 were decided against the defendant. On issue No. 7, learned trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for. The defendant preferred appeal, learned first appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court recording that trial Court had not considered Section 56 of the Town Improvement Act and also recorded that Ex. P2 does not help the plaintiff in any manner as it is issued by the Chairman and addressed to the President of Satnam Nagar, Guru Nanakpura Colony, Jalandhar. It cannot be interpreted as letter of exemption of the land or house u/s 56 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. The first appellate Court also considered the evidence of DW1 Harbhajan Singh, Kanungo that award (Ex. D1) was passed on 03.08.1986. The plaintiff was awarded compensation of Rs. 3795/-. The Improvement Trust took physical possession on 05.03.1981 vide rapat (Ex. D2). Ex. D3 is the site plan showing the total land of which plaintiffs house forms a part.

At the time of admission, no substantial question of law was framed. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been placed on record:-

Whether the lower Appellate Court was legally justified in reversing the detailed and well considered issue-wise judgment and decree of the trial Court without dealing with all the reasons given therein?

Whether the lower Appellate Court was legally justified in allowing the appeal of the defendant-respondents as a result of gross misreading of the letter dated 28.02.1977, Ex. P2, which clearly covers the fact of exemption of the plaintiff-appellants property?

Whether the findings of the lower appellate Court as regards the notice issued u/s 195, Punjab Municipal Act, 1913, are completely mala fide, illegal and without jurisdiction as the plaintiff-appellant in exercise of complete prudence was also party to the representation made for grant of exemption?

Whether the lower Appellate Court acted illegally, arbitrarily, and without jurisdiction in misreading and misinterpreting the letter Ex. P2 as regards the fact that it was the duty and responsibility of the defendant-respondent to determine as well as fix the development charges and also to issue the demand thereof?

Whether the lower Appellate Court was manifestly wrong and against settled principles of law by not holding the notice Ex. P1 to be manifestly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction being issued beyond the period of 6 months from the time of completion of the building in question?

Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside being, perverse?

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This Court finds that the only substantial question of law involved in this appeal is "whether there is valid exemption in view of Ex. P2?"

Admittedly, a development scheme known as "110 Acres scheme" was framed by the respondent-defendant. The property in dispute falls in the said scheme. DW1 Harbhajan Singh, Kanungo has appeared and stated that scheme was sanctioned on 06.08.1975 and the award was passed on 03.08.1976 vide Ex. D1. During the pendency of the award proceedings, plaintiff moved an application alleging that he is owner of 11 marlas of land out of the total area measuring 34 kanals 6 marlas. The Collector has awarded compensation of Rs. 3795/- and the physical possession was taken by the respondent-defendant on 05.03.1981 vide rapat Ex. D2. Ex. D3 is the site plan showing 34 kanals 6 marlas area out of which the appellant-plaintiff was owner of 11 marlas. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that the land was exempted in view of letter (Ex. P2) which was issued to the President of Satnam Nagar, Guru Nanakpura Colony, Jalandhar. As such, the land stood exempted. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that notice u/s 193 of the Punjab Municipal Act with regard to demolishing the house is not sustainable since it was allegedly exempted from the scheme in view of Ex. P2. Section 56 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act reads as under:-

(1) Wherever in any locality comprised in any scheme under this Act the State Government has sanctioned the acquisition of land which is subsequently discovered to be unnecessary for the execution of the scheme the owner of such land, or any person having an interest therein, may make application to the trust requesting that the acquisition of such land be abandoned in consideration of the payment by him of a sum to be fixed by the trust in that behalf;

Provided that no land shall be deemed to be unnecessary for the execution of the scheme, unless the State Government, after making such enquiry as it may deem fit, declares it to be so by a notification in the official gazette.

Perusal of letter (Ex. P2) only shows that it was addressed to the President of Satnam Nagar, Guru Nanakpura Colony, Jalandhar by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust. It cannot be interpreted that in view of this letter exemption was granted u/s 56of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. The Government is required to make an enquiry and thereafter pass an order regarding the same. Another fact that goes against appellant is that the compensation has been assessed. The appellant-plaintiff cannot now agitate this point.

The question of law mentioned above is thus answered against the appellant as in view of Section 56 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, the exemption can only be granted by the government and not by the Chairman of the Trust on the basis of letter written to President of the Colony. In view of above, the instant regular second appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no costs.