MANDAL PANCHAYATH HUNSAGI versus NORTH EASTERN K.R.T.C.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 353 
. , 
~ 
MANDAL PANCHAYATH HUNSAGI 
A 
v. 
NORTH EASTERN K.R.T.C. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2554 of 2009) 
APRIL 15, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
...., ·~ 
Suit - For permanent injunction by Road Transport 
Corporation -
Seeking restraint against defendant -
Panchayat from constructing shops on the land owned by c 
another agency of Government - Defendant stating the 
construction to be for welfare of public and being sanctioned 
by Zilla Parishad - Suit decreed - First appellate court setting 
aside decree on the ground that the plaintiff had no locus 
standi to maintain the suit as the suit land did not belong to D 
it, and that suit was required to be filed u/s. 92 CPC - High 
Court decreed the suit - On appeal, held: The suit was 
maintainable by the plaintiff - Filing of suit in terms of s. 92 
CPC not required - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 92. 
·-
A suit seeking mandatory injunction and perpetual E 
injunction was filed by respondent-Road Transport 
Corporation, against appellant-Manda! Panchayat. It was 
alleged that the. respondent was constructing shops on 
the land maintained by PWD, behind which it was running F 
the bus stand and in the middle portion whereof, the road 
owned by PWD was used for egress and ingress of 
passengers. 
There also existed wicket gate for the safety of 
.I 
~ 
passengers. Appellant-defendants stated that the wicket G 
gate was not in use; that the shops were being 
constructed for the welfare of the public under Jawahar 
Rozgar Yojna; and that the construction was after 
approval of Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad. Trial Court 
353 
H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
r 
decreed the suit. First appellate court set aside the decree 
"1 
A 
holding that the construction was for public purpose 
after approval; and that the respondent had no locus 
standi to maintain the suit as the land in dispute 
belonged to PWD. It opined that the suit was required to 
B be filed u/s. 92 CPC. High Court, in second appeal 
decreed the suit setting aside order of first appellate 
court. Hence the present appeal. 
t 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. It has not been disputed before any of the 
courts below that no construction could have been 
raised within 30 meters from the centre of the road. A 
finding of fact had been arrived at to that effect by the trial 
Judge. The said finding of fact has not been reversed by 
D the first appellate court. It is in that view of the matter, the 
High Court rightly held that the wicket gate constructed 
within 50 ft. of the centre of road for facilitating the egress 
and ingress of the passengers to enter the bus stand 
could not have been blocked. [Para 8] [359-G, H; 360-A] 
E 
2. The Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad has not 
and could not have entered into the disputed question 
of title in respect of the suit land. Only because the Zilla 
Parishad has granted approval for the constructions, the 
same by itself would not coine in the way of the 
F respondent's right to maintain a suit. It was not necessary 
for it to file a suit in terms of Section 92 CPC. If the 
provisions of Section 92 CPC were not attracted, the suit 
by the Corporation which is also a statutory corporation, 
was maintainable. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] [360-E; 360-F; 
G 361-8] 
.. 
... 
3.The very fact that the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad 
himself had directed for opening a passage to the wicket 
gate which order has not been questioned by the 
H appellants, is a clear pointer to show that even the 
MANDAL PANCHAYATH HUNSAGI v. NORTH 
355 
,,,, 
EASTERN K.R.T.C. 
)-
revisional authority did not arrive at a finding that they A 
have a lawful title over the land so as to enable them to 
raise construction over the suit land in their own right. 
The constructions raised by the appellant, thus, being 
illegal, the same should have been directed to be 
demolished. The Court of first appeal committed a serious B 
illegality insofar as it, for all intent and purport; dismissed 
the respondent's suit on the question of locus standi. 
........ ~ 
[Paras 12] [360-G, H; 361-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2544 c 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2006 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. No. 537 of 2001. 
Dipak Kumar Jena for the Appellant. 
D 
-~ 
R.S. Hegde and P.P. Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
-

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