Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BIR SAIN JAIN versus CONTONMENT BOARD

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BIR SAIN JAIN v. CONTONMENT BOARD - RSA-1079-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 123 (12 January 2006)

R.S.A. No.1079 of 2003 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No.1079 of 2003

DATE OF DECISION:20-1-2006

***

BIR SAIN JAIN

..APPELLANT

VS.

CONTONMENT BOARD

..RESPONDENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR,

Present:- Mr.N.K. Jain,Advocate

for the appellant.

***

JUDGMENT:

This is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant has no claim to the sun shade or the platform in front of his shop because sun shade had vested in the defendant-respondent Cantonment Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board"). In support of the aforementioned finding, reliance has been placed on agreement (Ex.P11) Resolution (Ex.D5) and agreement (Ex.D2). These documents have been discussed in detail in para No.9 of the R.S.A. No.1079 of 2003 2

judgment of the Lower Appellate court. After close analysis, the learned Lower Appellate court has concluded that the plaintiff-appellant has no claim to the sun shade, which has vested in the Board because it was removable by the Board as and when desired. It has further been found that the concrete platform in front of the shop of the appellant was constructed without any sanction because site plan Ex.D3 only provided for a wooden platform.

I have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and I am of the view that no interference of this Court would be necessary especially when the Board is acting in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 7639 of 1995. It was, in pursuance to the aforementioned directions, that the Board removed the sun shade and platform because it was causing obstruction in free flow of traffic. The aforementioned steps were taken by the Board after giving sufficient and suitable public notice because the encroachment and obstructions were widespread. Therefore, there is no room to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed.

January 20,2006 (M.M. KUMAR)

Jiten JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.