LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA AND ANR. versus BALINDER BACHAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA AND ANR.
A
11.
BALINDER BACHAN SINGH (D) BY L,!lS. AND ORS.
APRIL 28, 2004
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]
B
Municipalities:
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-Section 192-Town Planning Scheme-
Land belonging to 'R' included therein-8uit land admeasuring 3.16 kanals C
left in the scheme as open space to develop park-Scheme attained finality--
Respondents, the sons of 'R ', claiming to be owners-in possession filed suit
for injunction restraining the appellant-corporation from taking forcible
possession of the suit land-Held, the suit is iiable to be dismissed-
Documentary evidence proved that the suit land was left in the scheme for D
use by residents of the /ocality-lt cannot be said that the suit land did not
form part of the town planning scheme or that the land continued to be
owned by respondents and that they were in exclusive possession thereof
Appellant-Corporation notified a Town Planning Scheme under Section ,
192(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. 'R' (since deceased), whose land E
was also included in the scheme, filed objections. The objections were partly
accepted and the scheme was modified as per R's desire. After the scheme
was duly notified by the Government, land was developed as per the scheme.
Roads were carved ou~ sewage as well as other facilities were installed while
the suit land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas was left as a park for use of the '
inhabitants of that colony.
F
But when the scheme had attained finality and steps in pursuance
thereto had been completed, Respondents 1 and 2-the sons of 'R' claiming
that 'R' had no interest or right in the property and that they themselves were
owners-in-possession or the suit 1and, med suit for perpetua1 injunction 0
restraining the appellant from taking forcible possession.
Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit land was left as a '
park in the scheme which was duly developed and was being used as such by
the inhabitants of the locality and that the respondents were not in possession
855
If
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A of the suit land. But in first appeal, the Additional District and Sessions Judge
decreed the suit holding that the respondents were owners in possession of
the suit land and were, therefore, entitled to the injunction as prayed for. High
Court upheld the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Hence the present appeals.
B
Allowing the appeals and restoring the Trial Court's order, the Court
HELD: 1. Under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the
Municipal Corporation is entitled to draw up a building scheme for the built
area and the town planning scheme for unbuilt area which may among other
things provide for the restriction of the erection or re-erection of buildings,
C the prescription of a building line on either side or both sides of any street
existing or proposed, and the amount of land in such unbuilt area which is to
be utilised for public purposes including the use as public streets. (861-G]
2. For every locality green spaces and green belts have to be provided to
provide lung space to the residents of the locality. A provision for green park
D was made by the Municipal Corporation keeping in view the minimum
requirement to provide open/green space to the residents of the locality. 'R'
herself had submitted a lay out plan which comprised the present suit land.
She had herself agreed to leave 25 per cent of the area under the scheme to
be used by the inhabitants of the locality for common purposes including the
E open space area which is in dispute. The documentary evidence which has
come on record in the form of the original scheme as well as the documents
DI to D38 and the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner conclusively
show that the suit land measuring 3.16 kanals was left in the scheme to be
used as open space for the use of the residents of the locality.
{86l-H; 862-A, B, C]
F
3 .. 1. Map attached with the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the
site plan attached with the scheme completely tally with each other. In the
scheme 3.16 kanals of land was left as open space in the centre surrounded
by houses on three sides. The photographs produced also show that the land
is lying vacant and is being used by the inhabitants for common purposes.
G Besides the plots carved out in the scheme were sold by 'R' as well as her
sons including the plaintiffs-respoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.