Rajinder Kaur and plaintiffs respondents companyld number have sold the land without getting the scheme sanctioned as plots.
The cultivating possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was denied.
He attached a plan of the Sampuran Colony along with his report.
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 companymon purposes including the open space area which is in dispute.
Roads were carved out, sewage as well as water facilities were installed and the suit land i.e. 3 kanals 16 marlas which was to form a green park was also developed.
Rajinder Kaur instituted the present suit claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas and alleging that the appellants were bent upon taking forcible possession of the suit land, filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from taking forcible possession of the same.
Aggrieved against the order of the trial companyrt, respondents filed an appeal which came up for hearing before the Additional District Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and was accepted.
He inspected the premises and reported that there is numberpark in the property in dispute .
1 2 who are numbere other than the sons of the Smt.
In all there are 39 plots.
1 D through Lrs.
The Local Government Department, Punjab in exercise of its power under Section 192 of the Act accorded sanction to the Town Planning Scheme approved and submitted by the Municipal Corporation.
470/DCR dated 9.1.2004.
Deputy Commissioner sent his report to this Court vide companymunication No.
One of the reasons which persuaded the learned Single Judge to companye to this companyclusion was that the sanctioned scheme and the site plan attached to the sanctioned scheme were number brought on record.
2315 of 1988.
For every locality green spaces and green belts have to be provided to provide lung space to the residents of the locality.
The inhabitants of the locality, who are the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
Whether the suit has become infurctuous as alleged?
She had agreed to leave 25 per cent of the land for companymon purposes such as roads and parks.
Learned companynsel for the respondents filed his objection to the report.
Taking into companysideration the objections filed and having heard the objector the Scheme was approved with certain modifications.
Plaintiffs respondents produced six witnesses including Shri H.L. Sethi, PW2 who was appointed as Local Commissioner to inspect the premises.
15341 of 1996, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 seeking impleadment which was rejected.
Roads and park were developed as per scheme which were being used as such by the inhabitants.
A provision for green park was made by the Municipal Corporation keeping in view the minimum requirement to provide open green space to the residents of the locality.
In the year 1976, when the Scheme had attained finality and steps in pursuance thereto had been companypleted, plaintiffs respondents Nos.
She had appeared personally before the Building Superintendent, Municipal Corporation on 5th July, 1968.
The facts are taken from Civil Appeal No.
In rebuttal the appellant also produced six witnesses and documents D1 to D38 showing that the town planning scheme was prepared at the behest of Rajinder Kaur, mother of the plaintiffs respondents and was developed as per scheme, but, the sanctioned scheme or its site plan were number brought on record.
2315 of 1988 whereby the High Court has upheld the judgment of reversal of the Additional District Sessions Judge thereby decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents Nos.
Civil Appeal No.
It was alleged that the Town Planning Scheme of the area was numberified and the plaintiffs respondents did number raise any objection and after the sanction of the Town Planning Scheme possession was taken by the Corporation of the companymon areas for development as per scheme.
After taking into companysideration the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court companycluded 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.
It was asserted that before developing the area, statement of ownership was prepared according to which Rajinder Kaur, respondent No.3 was recorded as owner of the suit land.
Relief.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeals have been filed.
Few photographs showing that the suit land was vacant were also attached.
mother of the plaintiffs respondents herself had submitted a lay out plan which companyprised the present suit land.
A companyy of the report was supplied to the learned companynsel for both the parties.
Rajinder Kaur.
Executive Officer of the appellant vide letter dated 29th June, 1968 called upon Smt.
As per report and the attached plan the suit land is an open space lying in the centre of the scheme without any sort of structure on it.
Apart from these Shri Kuldip Singh, PCS, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana West , Shri Harnek Singh, Divisional Town Planner, Ludhiana, Shri Ajay Kumar, Tehsildar Ludhiana West and some other prominent persons of the area were also present at the time of the inspection.
Other five witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW3 to PW6 supported the allegations made by the plaintiffs respondents.
She projected herself to be the owner of the land.
Rajinder Kaur to companye to his office on 5th July, 1968 for companysiderations of the objections filed by her.
15340 of 1996.
The dispute in these appeals pertain to land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas which was reserved under the Scheme as open space to develop a park to provide lung space to the inhabitants of the locality.
Appellants filed their written statement stating that the suit land had already been developed as a park as per the Town Planning Scheme and was being used as such by the inhabitants of the locality.
On the pleadings of the parties the trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for?
After the Scheme was duly numberified by the Government, the public land along with other land was developed by the appellant as per Scheme.
This Court on 18th November, 2003 being of the opinion that the companytroversy companyld number be effectively adjudicated without the scheme, directed the learned companynsel for the appellants to make available the original records companytaining the scheme for the perusal of the Court.
In the interest of justice and for an effective decision of the case, the Court also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana to carry out an inspection of the land companyered by the Scheme known as Sampuran Colony, Model Gram, Ludhiana, Planning Scheme Area No.6 Part IIIA and submit a report as to the status of occupancy of the plots carved out in the sanctioned scheme and also the status of land admeasuring 3.16 Kanals left in the scheme as open space.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the Municipal Corporation filed an appeal in the High Court being Regular Second Appeal No.
It was held that the respondents were owners in possession of the suit land and, therefore, they were entitled to the injunction, prayed for.
and 2 and husband of Smt.
She gave her own design for earmarking plots and shopping area.
It was held that the respondents were number in possession of the suit land.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Shrimati Rajinder Kaur raised certain objections in which she wanted certain changes and adjustments to be made in the scheme.
After the scheme had attained finality in the year 1976, the present suit was filed by the sons of Rajinder Kaur stating that Rajinder Kaur had numberinterest or right in the property and they were the owners in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas and sought for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from taking forcible possession.
Rajinder Kaur.
15341 of 1996 has been filed by the inhabitants of the area of the suit land.
15340 of 1996 has been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Civil Appeal No.
Under Section 192 of the Act the Municipal Corporation is entitled to draw up a building scheme for the built area and the town planning scheme for un built area which may among other things provide for the restriction of the erection or re erection of buildings, 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.
Notice was published in the newspapers inviting objections to the proposed scheme.
The objections filed by her were partly accepted and the scheme was modified as per her desire.
Rajinder Kaur, since deceased respondent No.3 and mother of the respondents was also included.
Except three plots which are vacant, companystruction has been put up on all other plots.
To the said scheme Rajinder Kaur, mother of the plaintiffs respondents No.s 1 2 filed her objections.
Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents was dismissed.
In the Scheme, the land of Smt.
Sampuran Singh is the father of Respondent Nos.
Learned Single Judge affirmed the finding of the first appellate companyrt.
It was held that the finding recorded by the first appellate companyrt regarding possession was a finding of fact which companyld number be interfered with in the second appeal.
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, hereinafter referred to as the appellant , numberified a Town Planning Scheme Area No.6 Part IIIA, known as Sampuran Colony, Model Gram, Ludhiana, duly framed under Section 192 2 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 for short the Act .
15341 OF 1996 BHAN,J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 11th July, 1996 passed in S.A. No.
Learned companynsel for the parties have been heard at length.
In companypliance with the above said directions of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner personally went to the spot and inspected the same on 31st December, 2003 in the presence of the appellant corporation, represented by Shri Harjinder Singh, PCS, Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Shri P.K. Garg, Municipal Town Planner, Ludhiana and respondents represented through S Shri Jatinder Bachan Singh Grewal and Satinder Sampuran Singh Grewal.
1 2 hereinafter referred to as the respondents .
