Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1222 (PNJ)

Sumit Mangla v. R. K. Verma

2014-08-25

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2014
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [for short 'the Act'] for taking action against the respondents for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders dated 4.10.2008 (Annexure P1) and 17.1.2012 (Annexure P-10). 2. The petitioner is allegedly a public spirited person, whose basic grievance is that respondent No.3 has encroached upon the land falling in Khasra No.4//23/3/1, owned by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. 3. After notice, all the parties have filed their replies to the contempt petition. 4. The stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the land belongs to the Improvement Trust, which was acquired in the year 1979 and transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana in the year 1985. After the transfer of land, the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is to sanction the site plan for the purpose of raising construction over the land vested in it. 5. The stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No.3 is that the land in dispute in owned by him as it has been purchased vide registered sale deed No.6551 dated 9.10.2009 from Kunal Kumar and Gurpreet Kaur, after verifying their title. It is also the case of respondent No.3 that after purchasing the land, by way of the aforesaid sale deed, raised construction after demolishing the whole construction and sanctioning of the site plan by the Municipal Corporation vide application No.465-D dated 29.12.2010. The construction plan was sanctioned on 1.1.2011 through its building committee vide permit No.13916 dated 10.1.2011. Since, respondent No.3 was facing threat to his rights over the property in dispute purchased by him, he filed C.S. No.3453 of 2012 titled as "Sumit Mangla Vs. Municipal Corporation & others". It is a suit for permanent injunction in which respondent No.3 also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'the CPC'] seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court decided the application of temporary injunction on 11.8.2012 observing thus: - "In the instant case all the key ingredients are present as such it is a fit case in which the ad interim injunction is to be granted. The trial Court decided the application of temporary injunction on 11.8.2012 observing thus: - "In the instant case all the key ingredients are present as such it is a fit case in which the ad interim injunction is to be granted. As a result the application in hand filed by the applicant/plaintiff for the grant of ad interim injunction is allowed and the respondent/defendant is restrained from causing any hindrance, obstruction, hurdles interference in the construction being raised by the applicants/plaintiffs and is also restrained from demolishing or damaging any part of the property fully described in the plaint illegally and forcibly is allowed. However, in case of any illegal construction in violation of the sanctioned site plan the respondent/defendant would be at liberty to adopt the legal recourse as available under the law and in that case this order would not become a hindrance or a block and would automatically become inoperative. It is further made clear that my above observations will have no bearing on the merits of the case." 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, however, submits that he has no instructions as to whether Order dated 11.8.2012 was challenged by way of civil appeal or not. 7. Be that as it may, order dated 11.8.2012 is still in operation as the suit is at the initial stage as even the issues have not been framed. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to become a party to the suit which was dismissed in default on 16.3.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the application on 27.3.2012 which was pending for consideration for 24.9.2012 and thereafter the petitioner came up in CR No.3453 of 2012 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for expeditious disposal of the suit. The said revision petition was disposed of on 14.9.2012 with the following directions: - "The trial Court to decide the aforesaid restoration application of the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then if application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is restored, to dispose of the same in accordance with law within next three months. However, application moved by respondent No.3 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is stated to have since been disposed of by the trial Court on 6.9.2012 as submitted by counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, instant revision petition for expeditious disposal thereof has been rendered infructuous." 8. It is also not in dispute that application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was also allowed. As a result thereof, he is formally a party in the suit as a defendant. Since, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.1 & 3 are in connivance with each other, therefore, the order passed on 11.8.2012 for variation of the order of injunction could be at the instance of respondent No.1 but no effort has been made by it either of filing appeal against that order of the trial Court or by taking up action in accordance with the Municipal Corporation Act for cancelling the sanctioned plan. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has denied the allegations made by the petitioner and submitted that respondent No.1 is not in connivance with respondent No.3 as action has already been taken by issuing a notice to respondent No.3 as to why the site plan sanctioned in his favour be not cancelled but the proceedings are not making any headway because of the stay granted by the Civil Court. 10. I have also perused the order passed by the Civil Court dated 11.8.2012 in which the Civil Court has already given them liberty that in case of any illegal construction in violation of the sanctioned site plan has been raised by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 would be at liberty to adopt the legal recourse as available under the law and in that case order dated 11.8.2012 would not become a hindrance. Thus, I do not agree with the stand taken before me by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that it is not proceeding with the notice served upon respondent No.3 because of the order passed by the Civil Court on 11.8.2012. The Civil Court itself has granted a liberty to respondent No.1 to take appropriate action in case it finds that there is an illegal construction in violation of the sanctioned site plan by respondent No.3. 11. The Civil Court itself has granted a liberty to respondent No.1 to take appropriate action in case it finds that there is an illegal construction in violation of the sanctioned site plan by respondent No.3. 11. As far as the agitation of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has encroached upon the land of the Improvement Trust is concerned, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that in the order dated 11.8.2012 itself the Civil Court has observed that "if the Ludhiana Improvement Trust has any right/title over the suit property then Ludhiana Improvement Trust is free to adopt the legal recourse for obtaining the possession of the suit property after establishing its right over the suit property". However, at the time of temporary injunction, the Civil Court had found that since there is a newly built house of respondent No.3, on the land purchased by him, therefore, the prima facie case and balance of convenience are in his favour on the basis of which the temporary injunction was granted. 12. Adverting to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 has violated the order of this Court as it has not removed unauthorized construction from the land owned by it, the petitioner, who has already become a party in the Civil Court as his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC has become successful, may if so advised, file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC for seeking vacation of the order dated 11.8.2012, as the injunction order dated 11.8.2012 was passed behind his back when he was not a party thereto. He may also approach respondent No.1 for taking action to recover the land purchased by respondent No.3 on 09.10.2009. If it really belongs to respondent No.2 and if such representation is made by the petitioner within 15 days from today, respondent No.2 is directed to start proceedings in accordance with law immediately. The petitioner may also approach respondent No.1 for proceeding with the notice, already given, as stated by learned counsel for respondent No.1 for cancellation of the sanctioned site plan. If such a representation is made within 15 days from today to respondent No.1 as well, respondent No.1 is directed to take action forthwith, proceeding with the said notice which has been put at halt while interpreting the order dated 11.8.2012. If such a representation is made within 15 days from today to respondent No.1 as well, respondent No.1 is directed to take action forthwith, proceeding with the said notice which has been put at halt while interpreting the order dated 11.8.2012. It may be clarified that since it is a dispute of the immoveable property being claimed by respondent No.3, on the basis of registered sale deed, claiming himself to be a bona fide purchaser as he had verified the title of his vendor before purchasing the property in dispute, therefore, action be taken by respondents No.1 and 2 on the application filed by the petitioner only after examining their rights. It is needless to mention that any proceeding, which shall be initiated by respondents No.1 and 2 would have to be in accordance with the principle of natural justice, that is following the principle of audi alteram partem and passing a speaking orders at all levels. 13. Thus, the present petition is disposed of and the amount of ` 10,000/- deposited by the petitioner on 8.2.2013 be released to him.