Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.RAVINDER KAUR SANDHU versus HARCHARAN SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt.Ravinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harcharan Singh & Ors - CR-3395-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12622 (15 December 2006)

C.R.No.3395 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.R.No.3395 of 2006

Date of Decision : December 15, 2006.

Smt.Ravinder Kaur Sandhu ..... Petitioner Vs.

Harcharan Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Patwalia

* * *

Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

* * *

P.S.Patwalia, J. (Oral) :

The present revision petition has been filed against concurrent findings recorded by the courts below restraining the petitioner from alienating the property subject matter of the suit or from raising any type of construction on the said property. It is the case of the plaintiffs, respondents in this revision petition that their houses are situated over the land which is covered under the duly approved Town Planning Scheme having been sanctioned on 31.3.1976 vide drawing dated 15.9.1975. The plaintiffs contend that they have purchased their plots as marked in the Scheme and as per the Scheme, a Park was to be developed and maintained on the disputed plot. The Scheme was sanctioned over land belonging to defendant no.1 and her family members. The present petitioner is defendant no.1. It is the petitioner who had sold the plots to various persons including the plaintiffs as per the Town Planning Scheme. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that now respondent no.1 is bent upon alienating the said land meant for Green Area/Park in the said colony as per the Scheme. It is therefore that the suit was filed restraining the respondents from selling the land which was meant C.R.No.3395 of 2006 2

for the Green Area and for maintaining the same as Green Area. It is in this suit that interim injunction has been prayed for.

Defendant no.1, petitioner in this revision petition had contested the suit. She had stated that she was owner in possession of the property in dispute. She denied the existence of any such Scheme. It is her case that the suit property is owned and possessed by her and is part and parcel of her ancestral property and is at present a bagh with old fruit trees of mango, jamun etc. She further contended that she had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction stating that she was owner in possession of the said land and the Municipal Committee had no right to interfere in her use and enjoyment of the property. The said suit was decreed by the trial court and appeals filed by the Municipal Committee were dismissed by the first appellate court as also by this Court.

After examining the controversy the trial court found that a perusal of the site plan produced by the plaintiffs would show that the land subject matter of controversy in this suit was shown in red colour in the site plan and the said space had been kept for the Park. According to the Municipal Committee also a Town Planning Scheme was existing in this area which had been kept only for Park. It is on this basis that the application for interim injunction was allowed and the petitioner was restrained from alienating the suit property or raising any type of construction over the property. On a first appeal filed by the petitioner the lower appellate court again re-examined the matter. The lower appellate court also confirmed the injunction granted by the trial court. The Municipal Committee had admitted the Scheme and prima facie from the sale deeds and the plans it was apparent that the roads and plots were carved out in accordance with the Scheme and sold accordingly to different persons by the petitioner and her mother. It is on this basis that the injunction has been confirmed.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I do not find C.R.No.3395 of 2006 3

any ground to vacate the injunction granted by the courts below. I am of the opinion that if the injunction is vacated and the petitioner is permitted to either sell or change the nature of the property, an irreversible harm would be caused to the plaintiffs. On the other hand if the property is maintained as it is, no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner. At the same time being conscious of the fact that the petitioner has already faced one round of litigation with the Municipal Committee right up to the High Court I am of the opinion that the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial in the case. I am informed that the parties are yet to lead their evidence.

In these circumstances, it is directed that the trial court will decide the case as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date when a certified copy of this judgment is presented before the trial court. Needless to mention that no observation made herein above would effect the merits of the controversy before the trial court. The same would be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. The above observations are only for the purpose of deciding the present revision.

December 15, 2006 ( P.S.Patwalia )

monika 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.