Anup Singh vs Municipal Committee and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The controversy in appeal here is with regard to a building site, in respect of which the Municipal Committee, Kharar had sanctioned the building plan, as submitted by the plaintiff. Anup Singh. Later, however, the resolution sanctioning this plan was suspended by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kharar exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner.

It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the land in suit and he consequently sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Municipality from demolishing his newly constructed house there.

The Municipal Committee, Kharar, on its part pleaded that the land was in fact a chowk in a public street and that the building plans which were sanctioned by it on February 21, 1980, later stood suspend- ed by the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) of November 17, 1980 It was farther stated that no construction had been made on this land by the plaintiff as per the sanctioned plan.

The findings as recorded by the lower appellate court are that the land in suit was common land of the village being used as such by its inhabitants and was thus not property belonging to the plaintiff. As regards the sanctioned plan, it was not only found that the resclution sanctioning it had been suspended on November 17, 1980, but what is move, counsel for the plaintiff, was unable to show that the building constructed on this land was as per the Sanctiored plan

Faced with these findings, assistance sought from the judgment of the High Court of Lahore in Mistri Mohammad Hussain v. Municipal Committee, Sialkot AIR 1936 Lah. 689, where after the Municipal Committee has granted sanction to the appellant to build a platform and the platform had been built, as per the sanctioned plan, the resolution sanctioning the plan was suspended. As the sanctioned plan had been acted upon, it was held that the suspension of the resolution by the Deputy Commissioner u/s 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1916 could not affect the validity of the sanction granted. It will be seen, therefore, that in order to obtain the benefit of the rule enunciated in this judicial precedent, the two essential prerequisites are ; that the construction must have been made before the resolution sanctioning the plan was suspended and further that such construction must have been in accordance with the sanctioned plan. These the plaintiff has clearly failed to satisfy in the present case, as the construction made by the plaintiff is not as per the sanctioned plan. No infirmity can thus be imputed to the resolution suspending the sanction granted to the building plans submitted by the plaintiff.

Such thus being the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the lower appellate court and the denial to the plaintiff of the relief sought by him

Keeping in view, however, the fact that it was after the building plan had been sanctioned by the Municipal Committee that the plaintiff had built a kotha on the land in suit, interests of justice do render it incumbent upon the Municipal Committee to compensate the plaintiff for the expense that he must have incurred in building this kotha. It may be clarified that the plaintiff has no legal right to such compensation, but payment of it is recommended only as a measure of grace a ad fair play. Considering the nature and quality of the construction, as mentioned by the counsel for the parties, at the bar, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- is recommended to be paid to the plaintiff by the Municipal Committee besides permission also being granted to him to remove the malba of such construction.

This appeal, is with these observations, hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.