Nagar Parishad Narnaul and Others vs Union of India

Inderjit Singh, J.—Nagar Parishad Narnaul through its President and Secretary petitioners/defendants have filed this civil revision petition against respondent/plaintiff Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.5.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul and the judgment dated 26.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C., being illegal, arbitrary and against the true facts. As per brief facts given in the petition, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the petitioners/defendants to raise construction on its land in the shape of a 100 feet wide road leading from Narnaul City to Village Patikara whereupon a 28 feet wide metalled road has been constructed whereas 36 feet wide space on both sides is situated being berm of the road. The respondent owns the land adjoining the land of the petitioners towards the southern side and had constructed platform and other super-structure in the form of railway station and propose to utilize the vacant area as railway circulating area and park. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court that a 28 feet road would not be sufficient for the public in future and that the possibility of widening the road shall come to an end is again based on wrong application of mind and perverse approach as they have completely failed to appreciate the fact that even if the shops are constructed at least 55 feet area shall still remain for further widening the road which can clearly be seen in the site plan Annexure-P. 3. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul vide order dated 17.5.2011 and learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide order dated 26.7.2011 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 21 C.P.C. restraining the defendants/petitioners from raising any sort of construction over the berm of 100 feet wide road.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent and contested the petition.

I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the parties admitted that the shops are going to be constructed on the berm area of the road. It is also admitted fact that on the one side of the berm of the road where the shops are constructed there is a railway platform. The counsel for the revision petitioners at the time of arguments has also argued that Nagar Parishad, Narnaul is not constructing the shops, rather, these have been constructed by the private persons/lessees of the revision petitioners. The main argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the land is owned by the Nagar Parishad.

On this argument, I find that it is admitted fact that the total area of the road is 100 feet on which 28 feet in width is a metalled road and remaining area is berm area. The revision petitioners cannot raise the construction on the berm area so that the owner of the land adjoining to the road could not utilize its property properly. Further this construction of the shops etc. will create obstruction in the area of the railway, the access of the general public to the railway station, though as per site plan, space has been left for going to the railway station, but in no way, the Nagar Parishad has right to make construction on the berm area of the road to deprive the lawful owners of enjoying their properties. Further more, the relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is discretionary relief. Both the Courts have used the judicial discretion. In no way, the orders can be held against the law, arbitrary or illegal.

Therefore, from the above, I find that the order passed by the learned Courts below are correct and as per law and the same are upheld. Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.