JYOTI NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus AMIR CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 06-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
   [2022] 12 S.C.R. 802
802
JYOTI NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION
v.
AMIR CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Suit –Relief of permanent injunction sought – Non-entitlement
to– Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 – s.203(6) – Suit land was reserved
for a public park under the Town Planning Scheme under the Act–
Respondent no.1-plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction
restraining the officers of Municipality from disturbing his
possession of the suit land contending that it was not used for public
park even after five years of sanctioning of the scheme and he
continued to remain in possession thereof – Suit decreed in his favour
– Decree set aside by First Appellate Court –High Court passed the
decree of permanent injunction – Held: Plaintiff sought the relief
of permanent injunction only – Neither he challenged the Scheme
nor sought a declaration that it had lapsed and/or deemed to have
lapsed as the same was not implemented within a period of five
years from the date of its sanction – Further, in the communication
addressed to the Municipality there is a categorical admission on
the part of the plaintiff that the possession at least to the extent of
25% under the Town Planning Scheme was taken over, the only
dispute raised was w.r.t the calculation mistake – Plaintiff is bound
by such admission – Also, it was the specific case of the Municipality
that he re-entered the suit land and again got the possession and
started putting up fencing/wire poles– Thus, the Trial Court and
High Court erred in passing the decree of permanent injunction –
Once the land in question was reserved for a public park under the
sanctioned Town Planning Scheme and its possession was taken
over and the same has been developed as a public park, as such
the land vests in the Municipal Committee – Plaintiff not entitled to
the relief of permanent injunction – Impugned judgment and the
judgment of Trial Court set aside – Order of the First Appellate
Court restored – Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
803
Contempt – When not – Held: Order of status quo is required
to be considered w.r.t the context in which it was passed – Dispute
was w.r.t possession and even the Trial Court also granted the
injunction w.r.t the possession – Therefore, the order of status quo
granted by Supreme Court is required to be considered w.r.t the
possession only – However, possession of the suit land in question
was already taken over and had vested in Municipal Committee –
Thereafter, if any improvement is made and/or construction is put
up on suit land, it cannot be said that the same was in violation of
order of status quo – The land is used by the Municipality for a
public purpose i.e., for a public park and the local people are using
the same – Therefore, on facts, the contempt proceedings initiated
by the plaintiff are closed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5826
of 2022
From the Judgment and Orders dated 06.01.2016 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.115 of 1994.
With
Civil Appeal No.5827 of 2022 With Contempt Petition (C) No.660
of 2017 In Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2022
Manoj Swarup, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Advs., Neelmani Pant,
Mukul Kumar, Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Sachin Jain, Hardeep S. Sodhi,
Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and
order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 115 of 1994 (O&M), by
which, the High Court has disposed of the said appeal by observing that
the suit land in question under possession of the original plaintiff be also
acquired in accordance with law and compensation be paid to the original
plaintiff in accordance with law, Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association and
Municipality, Thanesar have preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
under: -
JYOTI NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. AMIR CHAND
(DEAD) THROUGH LRS  & ANR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
2.1 That after following the due procedure as required under the
provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act, 1973) the State of Haryana sanctioned Town Planning Scheme
No. 5 (unbuilt area) o

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