AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
[1] The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P-19) passed by the Director General, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, Panchkula.
[2] Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 6 and has filed his vakalatnama in Court today. The same is taken on record.
[3] The petitioner claims to be in possession of a shop admittedly owned by the Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar.
[4] State of Haryana vide notification dated 01.06.2021 promulgated policy for sale of shops/houses of municipal bodies where possession of such properties is with entities other with the municipal bodies RAJNEESH SHARMAfor a period of more than 20 years. However, the policy as per Clause ‘10’ had certain ancillary conditions which included Clause ‘c’, that reads as under:-
“c. In cases where the originally planned verandah have been covered/encroached by the adjoining stops/houses leases/renters/license fee holders. it will be permitted for the same to be sold by way of execution of conveyance deed while adhering to the other conditions of this policy, provided the occupiers of the entire row of shops, by passing a resolution, represent to the competent authority that all of them are interested in taking the benefit of this policy by adhering to all its conditions and are willing to take, uniformly, the encroached portion of adjoining verandah by paying the composition fee in terms of the provision of clause 9 of this policy at Base Rate (for the land) and the composition fee (clause 9 'b') of this policy in addition: Provided that such encroachment does not form a part of street/road and its dispensation shall not hinder 'the smooth movement of traffic and it is not reserved for any public purpose and not intended to be used for any common purpose; Note: The discretion of the Competent Authority in this regard shall be final and no appeal shall vest against such discretion as to get encroachment regularized is not a matter of right. ”
[5] Initially, after the petitioner applied, demand was raised but later on, the same was withdrawn vide communication dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-10). Operative part of the same reads as under:-
“ The applicant Deepak Sharma had applied for the conveyance deed of this shop, during which it was found that this shop is part of road of Model Town T.P. Scheme, Vide this office letter No.9809 dated 24.11.2023, a show cause notice was issued to Shri Rampal Mann, Building Inspector, in reply of which he while submitting his reply on 28.11.2023, has mentioned that:-
‘As per above cited subject, I want to state that measurement was done for the shop mentioned in show cause notice. Site RAJNEESH SHARMA was visited & measurement was taken/done jointly with Rent Branch staff, as they told that this shop is under Municipal Corporation & measurement will be done as per site & same was done as per actual size as per site. At that time it was told to me that, if any shop is under stairs/common passage will not be allotted only. And no body told me that this shop will not allotted due to road portion. I measured all shops as per information provided to me by Rent Branch. Hence, its my humble request to file my reply of above show cause notice'. Regarding the reply submitted by Shri Rampal Mann, Building Inspector, comments were sought from Assistant Town Planner, in which he has written that reply of Shri Rampal Mann is not satisfactory because this shop is part of Model Town T.P. Scheme Road. Keeping in view this situation, selling of this shop does not appear to be appropriate. So, it will be appropriate to cancel both the demand notices issued by the office dated 24.02.2022 and 21.08.2023 and report is submitted for passing an order of taking strict disciplinary action against the Building Inspector.”
[6] The petitioner approached this Court vide CWP-9685-2024. The same was disposed off vide order dated 30.04.2024. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal in view of the provisions of the notification.
[7] The petitioner preferred an appeal. The same now stands decided vide impugned order. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal, observed as under:-
“ Orders has been issued vide this officer order No. DULB/LB/2024/13254 dated 03.07.2024, in response to the appeal. by Shri Deepak Sharma, S/o Shri Babu. Ram. This order, clearly stated that the rejection by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Yamunanagar, was justified as the shop is part of the T.P. Scheme Road, and selling this shop did not appear appropriate. The case was remanded back to municipal corporation 2026.08.18 10:57 Yamunanagar with the direction to decide the case afresh. Following this, during the hearing held on 08.01.2025, the case was again discussed, and the Municipal Corporation Yamunanagar was directed to bring a detailed site plan along with the dimensions of the road to the next hearing on 27.01.2025. Further, on hearing dated on 27.01.2025 at. DULB (HQ) a thorough discussion... was held with both the parties regarding the shop's actual location whether the said site is part of ROW or not. Additionally, the shop's site was also examined using Google Maps satellite and street views. With this, after reviewing all the necessary documents, site plan & Google map both parties agreed that this shop is part of ROW and the shop is part of Row is undisputed. During the hearing, the appellant presented some documents regarding the shifting of this shop as per court orders. However, these documents are not relevant to the current issue. After hearing the officials from the Municipal Corporation Yamunanagar and the appellant by reviewing the available records / documents presented during the hearing, the speaking order passed by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Yamunanagar dated on 06.09.2024 seems appropriate. Consequently, the appeal of Shri Deepak Sharma, S/o Shri Babu. Ram, is rejected.”
[8] Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings recorded by the Municipal Authorities, as well as the Appellate Authority. He submits that there is no evidence on record to prove that the shop falls within ROW as per T.P. Scheme. Even T.P. Scheme itself has not seen the light of day and was never placed before any of the authorities concerned.
[9] Per contra, Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6, submits that the petitioner claimed ownership under a policy. The same has to be construed in terms of the covenants contained therein. Initially, the claim of the petitioner was sought to be accepted and the demand was raised. However, later on, it was found that the shop falls within Model Town, T.P. Scheme RRoad. Accordingly, the demand notices issued on 24.02.2022 and 21.08.2023 were withdrawn.
[10] I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.
[11] The claim of the petitioner has been rejected, holding that the shop being in between road falls within the exceptions carved out under the policy under which the petitioner claims allotment. The issue as to whether the shop falls within the road or not is aa pure question of fact. The Court, while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not sitting as a Court of appeal and is not expected to go into factual disputes. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner was first decided by way of speaking order (Annexure P-17) and thereafter the appeal was decided again by passing a speaking order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P-19), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
[12] In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ petition. The same is ordered to be dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail his remedies to prove that the land does not fall within the road as per T.P. Scheme.
[13] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off.