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. 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.