Jaswant Singh And Another vs Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar, And Another

Sanjay Kumar, J

The petitioners assail Resolution No.23 dated 22.05.1997 (Annexure P-9) of the Secretary of the Municipal Council of Yamuna Nagar, whereby their

plea for sanction of a building plan over a particular piece of land was rejected. They also assail the confirmation of the said rejection in appeal by the

Collector, Yamuna Nagar, VIDE order dated 03.03.1998 (Annexure P-10).

The petitioners’ case is that the land in question, being Plot No.603 situated at Santpura, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, originally belonged to one

Siya Nand Lal. He sold it under registered sale deed dated 17.09.1980 to one Rajesh Pal Nanda, who, in turn, sold it to one Veena Rani, VIDE

registered sale deed dated 07.08.1987. The plot was then sold by Veena Rani to one Vinod Kumar, under registered sale deed dated 03.03.1990

(Annexure P-2). Vinod Kumar is the vendor of the petitioners. They purchased the plot from him under registered sale deed dated 03.02.1995

(Annexure P-1).

It is significant to note that Siya Nand Lal, the original owner, filed Civil Suit No.443 of 30.11.1972 before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Jagadhari,

Haryana, seeking declaration of his ownership and possession over the subject plot and another plot. The Municipality, Yamuna Nagar, the

predecessor-in-interest of the Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar, was the 23rd defendant in the said suit. The Municipality’s stand before the trial

Court was that the subject plot was a park in its town planning scheme and that it had become the owner thereof by adverse possession. However, by

judgment and decree dated 07.03.1975 (Annexure P-4), the trial Court rejected the Municipality’s claim and declared the petitioner to be the

owner and possessor of both the suit plots. The aforestated judgment and decree was confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge,

Ambala, VIDE judgment and decree dated 24.11.1979 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.496 and 497/13 of 1978. Be it noted that Civil Appeal No.497/13 of

1978 was filed by the Municipality, Yamuna Nagar.

It may also be noted that Veena Rani, the subsequent purchaser, filed Civil Suit No.90 of 19.02.1988 before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class,

Jagadhari, Haryana, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with her possession over the subject plot. The

Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar, and its Chief Executive Officer were the defendants in the said suit. This suit was also decreed by the trial

Court, VIDE judgment and decree dated 09.06.1990 (Annexure P-5), rejecting the claim of the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar, that the plot in

question was being maintained as a park and that the Municipal Committee had become the owner, by virtue of being in possession thereof for the last

many years.

Interestingly, the immediate predecessor-in-title of the petitioners seems to have approached the municipal authorities seeking sanction of a building

plan in relation to the subject plot in the year 1990 and by Memo dated 25.10.1990 (Annexure P-8), the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar, granted

approval for construction being made on the subject plot as per the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Building Bye-Laws, 1977.

It is in this background that the impugned orders, Annexure P-9 and P-10, would have to be examined. Significantly, Annexure P-9 does not even

reflect any reasons for rejection of the petitioners’ application for building sanction. However, in the appellate order, it is brought out that the

Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar, once again harped upon the very same claims that it had put-forth time and again before the trial Court without

success but the appellate authority accepted the same.

It is not open to a State instrumentality, such as the Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar, to abuse the powers vesting in it and usurp private properties

even for a public purpose. The municipal authorities, having already canvassed their claim that they had been in possession of the subject plot for

several years and had perfected their title through adverse possession, met with failure, not once, but three times over. Having allowed the judgments

rendered against them in this regard to attain finality, it was not open to the municipal authorities to prevent the lawful owners of this private plot of

land, viz., the petitioners, from enjoying their full ownership rights. Be it noted that the petitioners have effectively been deprived of the beneficial

enjoyment of their own property since the year 1999.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside both the impugned orders, viz., Annexures P-9 and P-10. There shall be a direction to the

Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar, the successor-in-interest of the Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar, to forthwith consider the application of the

petitioners for sanction of the building permission on the merits of such plan, without reference to its stale claim that the plot in question is a park or

that it is owned by it.

In the light of the aforestated facts, which clearly bring out flagrant violation of the property rights of the petitioners under Article 300-A of the

Constitution and manifest sheer abuse of power by the municipal authorities, the Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar, shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/-

to the petitioners. These costs shall be paid within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The exercise with regard to

grant of sanction shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than two weeks from the date of completion of all formalities.