FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION versus YADU ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 11-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION 
v. 
YADUETC. 
DECEMBER 11, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Haryana Municipalities Act, 1973 : Section 208. 
Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulation and Development) 
C Act, 1972: Section 15 and (ii( l)(f). 
Unauthorised co11strnction-Notice for demolition-Limitation period 
foi-<:ondition for issue of notice-Construction of shops by B and 
M-Notice issued to them for unauthorised constrnction-1hereafter they sold 
D the land to respondents-Suit instituted by respondents for injunction restrain-
ing the appellant-Administration from demolishing the construc-
tiot>--<Jround that notices issued to B and M were beyond the period of 
limitatioTt--Suit decreed by Trial Court and a/finned by First Appellant 
Court-Second appeal dismissed by High Court-Appeal before Suprenie 
Court-Held the appellant succeeded to the property held by Ba/labgarh 
E Municipality-The notice issued under section 208 is .relatable Ito un-
authorised construction on the premise that the person proceeding with the 
construction is the owner of the property-The respondents had purchased the 
lands from B and it is not their case that B had title independent of the 
Municipality-Jn these circumstances, the limitation of Section 208 would not 
F arise-The decree granted by the Courts below held unsustainable-No in-
junction could be issued against the true owner i.e. appellant. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 894 of 
1986 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.87 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 3339 of 1986. 
D.V. Sehgal and Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. 
H 
Rajiv K. Garg and N.D. Garg for the Respondents. 
978 
~I 
FARIDABADCOMPLEXADMN. v. YADU 
979 
The following Order of the Court wa~ pelivered : 
Theses appeals by special leave arise from the judgments of the 
Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on July 17, 1985 and September 11, 
1985 dismissing the appeals in limine ./ 
A 
The undisputed facts .are that one Biharilal and Mahipal attempted B 
to construct shops on the lands in question. Notices were issued to them 
for unauthorised construction. Thereafter, admittedly, they sold the lands 
to the respondents who filed suits for injunction restraining the appellant 
from demolishing the construction made by them on the premises that 
Section 208 of the Haryana Municipalities Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act') C 
requires notice to be given within six months from the date of unauthorised 
construction. Since, admittedly, the notice was issued tcr Biharilal on March 
18, 1982 and constructions were made sometime in February 1981, it was 
beyond the period of limitation. That plea found favour with the courts 
below and accordingly the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court D 
decreed the suit and affirmed the same. The High Court dismissed the 
second appeals in limine. Thus, \)iese appeals by special leave. 
It is not disputed that the appellant is the successor in interest by 
operation of Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulation & Develop-
E 
ment) Act, 1972 (Act 4 of 1972) and succeeded to the property held by 
Ballabgarh Municipality. Section 61(1)(1) of the Act provides that subject 
to any special reservation made or special conditions imposed by the State 
Government all properties of the nature mentioned in that Section specifi-
cally and situated within the Mnnicipality shall vest in and be under the 
control of the Committee and that all other properties which have already F 
vested shall thereafter vest in the Committee and shall be held and applied 
by the Committee for the purpose of Act, i.e., to say "(I) all lands ..... or 
other properties transferred to the Committee by the State Government or 
acquired by the Government by purchase or otherwise for public purpose". 
It would be seen that all properties as enumerated in sub-section (1) of G 
Section 61 are possessed by the Ballabgarh Municipality. The appellant 
' 
· -. 
being the successor-in-interest, they stood transferred to and vested in the 
appellant by virtue of Section 15 of the Act. 
In the written statement filed by the appellant, it was averred that 
notice was given to Biharilal to the effect that he was in "unauthorised H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9S.C.R. 
A occupation of the land" and he was constructing unauthorisedly. He had 
given a reply thereto stating that he had already transferred the land. 
D.W.4, Krishan Lal had stated in his evidence 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.