M/s. Sepal Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab

Page 1

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4678/ 2014

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12025 of 2006]

M/s. Sepal Hotel Pvt. Ltd. …. Appellant (s)

Versus

State of Punjab & Anr. …. Respondent

(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.The origin of the lis in this appeal can be treated to earlier

proceedings which started sometime in 1970's and culminated in

the judgment of this Court in the case of Yogender Pal & Ors. v.

Municipality, Bhatinda reported in 1994 (5) SCC 709. We would

revert back to the said case with detailed discussion at the

appropriate stage, Suffice it is to mention at the stage that vide

the said judgment this Court declared Section 192 (1) (c) of the

1

Page 2

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

Punjab Municipal Act {This provision conforms to Section 203 (1)

(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act} as void, being violative of Article

14 of the Constitution of India. However, overruling of the said

provision was prospective i.e. from the date of the decision

rendered on 15.7.1994.

3.Coming to the facts of the present case, Shri Som Chand Katia

and Shri Vijay Katia were original owners of land measuring 44

bighas 6 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 2001 situated at

Bhatinda. Out of the said land a part comprising of 255 fts x 450

fts was licensed to the appellant for construction of a 3 Star Hotel

on 15.7.1974. The appellant applied for grant of layout plan for

the construction of a hotel, which was granted by the Municipal

Committee. After the receipt of the layout plan the appellant

herein constructed the hotel on the said land. Since then the hotel

has been in existence and running its business therefrom. The

total area of the hotel was covered by a boundary wall and is in

possession of the appellant herein.

4.The Municipal Committee framed a new Scheme i.e Town

Planning Scheme No. 2, Part I, in the year 1975. This Scheme was

2

Page 3

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

sanctioned by the State Government. As per the said Scheme, a

part of the land covered by the Appellant's hotel was required for

the construction/widening of the road. The Municipal Committee

issued a notice dated 7.6.1978 to the appellant herein directing

the appellant to demolish the boundary wall of the hotel and

transfer that part of the land to the Municipal Committee.

Apprehending an action at the behest of the Municipal Committee,

the appellant filed a suit for grant of injunction against execution

of the aforesaid notice. The Counsel for the Committee appeared

and gave an undertaking not to demolish the boundary wall and

based on this statement the said suit was withdrawn on

5.12.1979. However, the Municipal Committee again threatened

to demolish the boundary wall, thereby impelling the appellant to

file another suit, being No. 386 dated 18.12.1979. This suit was

decreed on 11.12.1981 with an observation that Town Planning

Scheme qua the appellant having not finalised, therefore, the land

belonging to the appellant could not vest in the Municipal

Committee.

5.At the same time, the appellant also challenged the vires of

3

Page 4

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

Section 192 (1) (c) of the Municipal Act by way of a Writ Petition

No. 226 of 1979. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a

Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16.1.1980

alongwith other connected matters whereby it directed the

Committee to consider the objections of affected landowners

under the provisions of Section 192 (1) (c) of the Act which would

be filed within 12 weeks before the Committee and the Committee

would then proceed to consider the said objection and dispose

them of within three months. Thereafter, it could make a

recommendation to the Government in accordance with provisions

of Section 192 of the Act. It was made clear that till the objections

are decided, the rights of the landowners would not be affected.

However, it was stated that if the objections were rejected the

provisions of Scheme shall become final and shall be forwarded to

the State Government for amending the Scheme in accordance

with law.

6.As per the directions, the appellant filed its objections before the

Municipal Committee, stating therein that as per the

measurement at the spot, the road which starts from 40 feet wide

4

Page 5

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

Namdev Road and proposes to connect 30 feet wide road at the

end of the hotel boundary and which passes through Khasra No.

2001 is at a distance of 275 feet but was wrongly shown in the

Scheme at 224 feet. So, it was requested that the said

discrepancy in the Scheme be corrected so that there is no

dispute. The above objections of the appellant were considered by

the Municipal Committee and a Resolution No. 306 dated 9.7.1980

was passed. The relevant portion concerning the objections of the

petitioner in Item No. 11 is as under:

“Item No. 11: Vide this objection, the objector had stated that for joining the 30 feet and 40 feet wide road, the length of the road has been shown as per the Scheme as 224 feet whereas at the spot the length is 275 feet. Therefore, it was decided that the plan of the Sepal Hotel, which has been sanctioned by the Municipal Committee be checked at the site and after inspecting the site as per the objections raised by the objector, the survey plan of the one part be corrected. The aforesaid resolution was signed by Shri Gopal Singh, President, Municpal Committee, Bathinda, Mukhtiar Singh, Divisional Town Planner, Bathinda and Shri L.D. Gupta, Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Bathinda.

7.As per the appellant, after passing of the above Resolution

dated 9.7.1980, no further action was taken by the Municipal

5

Page 6

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

Committee to amend the Scheme nor any communication was

received by the appellant conveying its decision by the Municipal

Committee with regard to the objections.

8.In the meantime, the suit bearing no. 386 of 1979 was decreed

on 11.12.1981, wherein it was observed by the learned Senior

Sub-Judge that the Town Planning Scheme qua the appellant had

not become final and, therefore, the subject land cannot vest in

the Municipal Committee and the disputed land on which

construction exists cannot be said to belong to the Municipal

Committee.

9.The appellant filed another Civil Suit bearing no. 641/ 1983

against the Municipal Committee for permanent injunction not to

demolish four rooms, which are in the premises of the hotel itself.

However, the said suit was dismissed and the appellant herein

filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhatinda, which

was withdrawn upon the statements of the Counsel for the

parties. It was agreed that demarcation of the disputed rooms be

made in the presence of the parties to verify as to whether the

same are part of the street or not. The demarcation of the

6

Page 7

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

disputed rooms was to be made in the presence of the parties.

Municipal Committee was restrained to demolish the rooms till

demarcation is completed.

10.Pursuant to the above order, Shri Hem Raj, Patwari, Halqua

carried out the demarcation of the disputed rooms and submitted

his report dated 19.8.1986 to the Tehsildar on the basis of which

an order was passed wherein it was held that there exists no

passage or roads in Khasra No. 2001 in the revenue report. In the

meantime, the provisions of Section 192 (1) (c) of the Act were

interpreted by this Court in the case of Yogendra Pal (supra) in

which Section 192 (1) (c) providing vesting of land in the

Municipal Committee was declared ultra vires and, therefore,

these provisions were struck down w.e.f. the judgment i.e.

15.7.1994.

11.However, the matter did not rest there. The appellant received

notice dated 9.9.2003 from the successor of the Municipal

Corporation- Respondent No. 2, directing the appellant to leave

the street within 10 days in terms of the same Town Planning

Scheme No. 2, Part I, framed in the year 1977. The appellant sent

7

Page 8

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

reply dated 16.9.2003 which was followed by another reply dated

27.9.2003. It is the case of the appellant that without considering

these replies, Respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 9.10.2004 to

the appellant under Sections 246 and 246A of the Act seeking to

leave 30 feet street as per the Town Planning Scheme No. 2, Part I,

on or before 13.10.2003. The appellant replied to that notice on

13.10.2004 alleging that the proposed action was illegal and

amounted to the abuse of powers. Immediately thereafter the

appellant also filed the Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2004 on

13.10.2004 in the High Court seeking quashing of the said notice

dated 9.10.2004 and that the Town Planning Scheme No. 2, Part I

be declared as lapsed due to non-implementation. As per the

appellant, this planning Scheme was not implemented even after

30 years of framing and had, therefore, lapsed. However, the

appellant withdrew this writ petition on 30.11.2004 with liberty to

file fresh petitions. Fresh petition No. 19790 of 2004 was filed on

15.12.2004 challenging the said notice dated 9.5.2004. This Writ

Petition has been dismissed by the High Court vide judgment

dated 2.5.2006. That judgment is impugned by filing Special

8

Page 9

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

Leave Petition under Article 136, out of which present appeal

arises.

12.As pointed out above main contention of the appellant before

the High Court was that as the Scheme was not implemented for

the last more than 30 years and objections filed by the appellant

had not been decided, the said Scheme had lapsed and

Respondent No. 2 had no authority to implement the same. This

contention has not found favour with the High Court. The High

Court took note of the fact that the appellant had earlier filed Civil

Writ No. 226 of 1979 in the said court challenging that very

Scheme. That writ petition along with many other similar writ

petitions, were disposed of holding that the Scheme under

challenge was rightly promulgated after passing an appropriate

Resolution. Matter was remitted to Respondent No. 2 to decide

objections, if any filed by the appellant and others similarly

situated persons, with clear direction that in case the objections

are rejected, the provision of the Scheme shall become final.

13.The High Court further noted that in order to dispose of

objections filed by various individuals, matter was put up before

9

Page 10

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

the Municipal Committee on 9.7.1980. Many objections were

disposed of including Objection Nos. 10 and 11 which were filed

by the Managing Director of the appellant and the appellant

respectively. In so far as objections of the appellant are

concerned, it was ordered that to ascertain length of road left in

the Scheme, measurement be done at the spot. Therefore, the

only dispute which remained was with respect to measurement of

the property at the spot. As such the appellant was not right in

contending that its objections were not disposed of and were still

pending. The High Court also went through the record and

discussed the same. On that basis, the High Court has further

observed that some demarcation was got done by the appellant

from the Revenue Department on the basis of aks – Shajra. In that

report, it was observed that there is no street in Khasra No. 2001,

in which Hotel of the appellant is situated. However, the High

Court chose to discard that Report got prepared by the appellant,

giving following reasons

“The appellant is now placing reliance upon the said demarcation report to say that there existed no street which, as per allegation of respondent no. 2 has been encroached by the appellant. No benefit of that report

10

Page 11

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

can be extended to appellant, as the demarcation was not done keeping in view the Town Planning Scheme. Report seems to have been made on wrong facts. Admittedly in revenue record, the street is not in existence as the same has been carved out only in the approved Scheme, which is under challenge. Thereafter, when notice was sent to the petitioner to remove encroachment from the street, he again tried to delay the matter and subsequent thereto, filed the present writ petition”.

14.On the basis of these facts as recorded by the High Court, it

came to the conclusion that the challenge to the Scheme had

attained finality and the objections were also considered and

taken to logical conclusion. Nothing remained thereafter and it

could not be said that the Scheme had not become final and

cannot be implemented now. To recapitulate in brief, the High

Court has in the impugned order recorded that:

i. The demarcation report seems to be made on wrong facts and that in the revenue record there was no street.

ii. It was further wrongly recorded that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed by the High Court on 16.1.1980. iii. With regard to the appellate order dated 20.5.1986, it was held that pursuant to the said order, the Managing Director of the Petitioner “managed to

11

Page 12

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

get a wrong report”, i.e. the demarcation report dated 19.8.1986. iv. Finally, the High Court held that the Scheme had attained finality in view of the judgment of the Civil Court and the appeal had been dismissed as withdrawn and, therefore, it was not open to the appellant to say that the Scheme had not become final and could not be implemented after a period of 30 years.

These are the reasons given by the High Court for dismissing the

writ petition.

15.Before we proceed to record the submissions of the counsel on

either side, we would like to point out the ratio of Yogender Pal

(supra) mention to which has been made in the beginning. As

pointed out above that was a case where the vires of Section 192

(1) (c) of the Punjab Municipal Act were challenged as violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the appellants therein

succeed in their challenge. Aforesaid provision was held to be

unconstitutional as under this provision, to implement a Scheme

land of the landowner could be taken away without even paying

any compensation. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the

overruling of this provision was made prospective i.e. from the

date of the decision rendered on 15.7.1994.

12

Page 13

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

16.It was noticed in para 29 that various lands had been acquired

for Town Planing Schemes and “in many cases the Schemes have

also been completed.” In view of the said fact, it was held that it

would not be in public interest to unsettle the settled state of

affairs as it would create a total chaos. The court was, therefore,

mindful of the fact that there would be cases where the Schemes

had been implemented and constructions etc. had already been

carried out in terms of the Scheme. Those Schemes which were

already carried out were, thus, protected.

17.It is, in this scenario the moot question which falls for

consideration is as to whether in the present case the Scheme in

question had been finalised or not.

18.When the Scheme in the present case were framed in the year

1975 to implement the same, the Municipal Committee issued

notice to the appellant on 7.6.1978 for demolition of boundary

wall of the hotel and transfer the same to the Committee, which

was required for the road. The appellant challenged the same by

filing the writ petition in the High Court. In fact various Town

13

Page 14

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

Planning Schemes framed by the Municipal Committees of

Amritsar and Bhatinda were the subject matter of challenge

before the High Court by way of various Civil Writ Petitions. These

were disposed of by a common order dated 16.1.1980. It was

made clear that the provisions of the Scheme in so far as they

affect the rights of the writ petitioners, will not be taken to be final

and the said provisions will only become final after the objections

filed by the appellants are considered by the Committees and

disposed of.

19.Thus, a conjoint reading of the judgment in Yogender Pal

(Supra) decided by this Court as well as judgment dated

16.1.1980 by which aforesaid writ petitions were decided by the

High Court would make it clear that in those cases where the

Scheme had been finalised, they remain protected and

Respondent No. 2 shall have right to go ahead with the

implementation of the said Scheme.

20.It is the common case of the parties that the High Court had

permitted the appellants and others to file their objections and the

Scheme was to become final only after the objections were

14

Page 15

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

considered by the Committee and disposed of. However, whereas

Respondent No. 2 maintains that the objections of the appellants

were disposed of/ rejected, the appellant argues otherwise and it

is pleaded that the matter remained in limbo without any decision

on its objections. The outcome of the present appeal would

depend upon this aspect.

21.In his endeavour to demonstrate that no final decision was

taken on the objections of the appellant Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,

learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that these

objections were considered on 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980. A perusal

of the proceedings dated 30.6.1980 makes it clear that it was

decided “that verification be done at the spot and in case there is

any mistake in the plan of the Scheme, the same be got rectified.”

The objection regarding the demarcation was rejected by placing

reliance on Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which

permitted land to the extent of 25% to be taken without payment

of compensation and additional 10% to be taken after payment of

compensation.

22.In the proceeding dated 9.7.1980 the claim of the appellant for

15

Page 16

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

compensation was noticed and the said objection was rejected.

However, it was also decided that the plan of Sepal Hotel as

sanctioned by the Municipal Committee would be checked and

after inspecting the spot, survey plan would be corrected in view

of the objection of the objector.

23.In the meantime, Civil Suit No. 386 of 1979 filed by the

appellant herein was also decided. A perusal of the judgment

dated 11.12.1981 in the suit makes it clear that the contention of

the counsel for the appellant herein that the objections had to be

considered, was not disputed by the counsel of the Municipal

Committee and “he conceded that the Scheme framed by the

Municipal Committee has not yet become final.” It was also held

that “it is obvious from copies of resolution that the Municipal

Committee is seized of the objections filed by the plaintiff.”

24.As per Mr. Gupta, this makes it clear that even after the

resolutions of 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980, the objections of the

plaintiff were, admittedly, yet to be decided and the Scheme had

not yet become final.

25.It is further submitted that since in spite of the aforesaid

16

Page 17

C.A. No.4678/ 2014 @ SLP(C)No. 12025 of 2006

orders, the Municipal Committee was seeking to pursue the action

under the Scheme without deciding the objections, another Suit

No. 64 of 23.12.1983 was filed by the appellant herein. After the

suit had been dismissed, the appellate court passed a consent

order dated 20.5.1986 wherein it was agreed that the appeal will

be dismissed as withdrawn and an application for demarcation will

be submitted within a month. The Municipal Committee agreed

that demarcation shall be made in the presence of the parties and

they will not demolish the disputed rooms till the demarcation was

done. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the said

statement.

26.Thereafter, a demarcation was done on 19.8.1986. A perusal of

the same makes it clear that it was noticed therein that there was

no street falling in the concerned Khasra number as per the

revenue record and, therefore, the street could not be

demarcated.

27.Mr. Gupta, questioned the correctness of the finding of the

impugned order by making the following submissions:

i. The order dated 16.1.1980 categorically records that the provisions of the Scheme in so far as they

17

Page 18

affect the rights of the petitioners will not be final and the provisions will only become final after the objections filed by the appellant are considered by the committee and disposed of. ii. A perusal of the proceedings dated 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980 makes it clear that the objections were still pending and demarcation etc. had still to be carried out. iii. This fact stood admitted in the order dated 11.12.1981 wherein the counsel for the Municipal Committee had conceded that the Scheme framed had not yet become final and that the Municiapl Committee was seized of the objections. iv. It is submitted that after the aforesaid date, the only progress was the report dated 19.8.1986, as per which report the demarcation of the street could not be done since there was no street as per the revenue record. Assuming there was an error in the said demarcation, at best a fresh demarcation could have been ordered. In any event, it could not be said that the Scheme had been finalised, as recorded by the High Court. v. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate court dated 20.5.1986 also makes it absolutely clear that it was agreed that there will no demolition till the demarcation was done. Accordingly, without any demarcation having admittedly been done thereafter, there was no question of the Scheme having become final. vi. That the aforesaid facts are further reinforced for a consideration of the agenda item dated 27.12.1995, pursuant to the judgment of this court. A perusal of the resolution makes it clear that the Municipal Committee had “decided that the Schemes which are

18

Page 19

pending are hereby dropped by the Municipal Council, Bathinda and the office is directed to act accordingly.” Thus, all pending Schemes stand dropped as per the aforesaid resolution.

28.Per contra, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Municipal Corporation, Bhatinda (Respondent No. 2)

submitted that the judgment in the case of Yogender Pal had no

applicability as the law declared therein was made prospective by

observing that it would not be in public interest to unsettle the

settled state of affairs. It was, thus, a case of prospective

overruling. He further submitted that as per the judgment dated

16.1.1980 of the High Court, the provisions of the Scheme were

not to become final unless the objections filed by the appellants

are disposed of by the Committee. A fortiorari, the Scheme was to

attain finality if the objections were to be rejected and that was

specially observed by the High Court. Countering the submissions

that the objections had not been decided/ rejected Mr. Mahabir

Singh argued that these objections were specifically rejected by

the Municipal Committee way back on 30.6.1980 and on 9.7.1980.

He further submitted that this rejection was never challenged by

19

Page 20

the appellant. Instead he preferred a civil suit for permanent

injunction which was, however, dismissed on 4.11.1985. A reading

of this order would reveal that the objections were duly

considered by the Committee and the same were dismissed. Even

appeal was filed against this judgment and decree of the trial

court but the appellant withdrew the same and, therefore, finding

of the trial court that objections were rejected had become final.

His further plea was that these are pure finding of facts which

have been arrived at against the appellant who has dragged on

the matter for last 30 years after successfully encroaching upon

the land which was duly carved under Town Planning Scheme for

public street. He further submitted that the appellant had

suppressed all these proceedings including filing of Civil Writ No.

19812 of 1996 which was subsequently withdrawn by him.

29.We have given our anxious thought to the aforesaid

submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It is a common

case of the parties that the judgment in Yogender Pal (Supra) is

prospective i.e from the date of judgment which is 15.7.1994. It is

also a common case of the parties that the Scheme in question

20

Page 21

was framed much earlier. Thus, as pointed out above, the only

issue is as to whether the Scheme had attained finality and

answer to this question depends upon another issue viz. whether

objections of the appellant to the Scheme were disposed of by

Respondent No. 2 or not, in compliance with directions dated

19.6.1980 of the High Court.

30.It is borne from the record that these objections were duly

considered on 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980. In the proceedings of

30.6.1980 objections of the appellant regarding demarcation were

rejected. At the same time it was decided that verification be done

at the spot and in case there is any mistake in the plan of the

Scheme, the same be got rectified. It was so done. Thereafter,

matter came up before the Committee on 9.7.1980 and after

considering the entire matter the Committee specifically rejected

the objections of the appellant. Operative portion of the minutes

of the meeting dated 30.6.1980 as well as 9.7.1980 are as under:

“ Minutes of the Meeting dated 30.6.1980:

Shri Som Chand Katia, Writ Petitioner No. 226/79 is present. He has stated that his total land measuring 31550 sq. yards is covered under the Scheme and his land to the extent of 35% has been taken under the

21

Page 22

Scheme and some of his land thus goes waste. The objector has been asked to get the demarcation of the total land at the spot and produce the plan in the office of Municipal Committee by 7.7.1980 and should also get the spot inspection of the land so that in spot inspection it could be verified as to how much of his land falls under the Scheme. In case any area more than 25% of his total land comes under the park/ road, the same may be adjusted. The objector has stated that he is not ready to give any land for road or park without compensation. Thus objection of the objector is rejected because under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 land to the extent of 25% without payment of compensation and an additional 10% with payment of compensation can be taken for the purpose or roads and parks under the proposed Town Planning Scheme.”

Minutes of the Meeting dated 9.7.1980 “As per decision dated 30.6.1980, the objector Shri Som Chand Katia was required to get the measurement of his land at the spot. He has produced a photostat copy of revenue record relating to Khasra No. 2001 which has been attested by Halqa Patwari. As per the same, their total area in the Scheme comes to 44300 sq. yards. The plea of objector is that the Sepal Hotel whose area is 12750 sq. yards has different out of the total area and the land for roads and parks be taken out of the remaining area as per law. But he should be given compensation of the same as well. On perusal of record, it is found that sanction of building plan of Sepal Hotel has also been given to them who were the original owners of total land. Therefore, the Sepal Hotel had also been adjusted in the Scheme. Therefore, the Sepal Hotel had also been adjusted in the Scheme. Therefore, it is decided that the plot of Sepal Hotel cannot be treated to be different from the land belonging to the said family

22

Page 23

under the purposes of Scheme and in this way out of total ownership land, the land under the road and parks does not form more than 25% which is as per law, therefore, this objection is rejected. Therefore, in this objection, the objector has written that the length of road joining the 30' x 40' wide roads has been shown to be 224 under the Scheme whereas the sport the same is 275. therefore, it is decided that plan of the Sepal Hotel as sanctioned by Municipal Committee be checked at the spot and after inspecting the spot survey plan be got corrected in view of the above objection of objector.”

31. It is clear from the above that objections were specifically

rejected. Only thing which the Municipal Committee wanted was

to check the plan of Sepal Hotel as sanctioned by the Municipal

Committee at the spot and after inspecting the spot the survey

plan be corrected. It is also clear from the above that main

objection was for payment of compensation which was rejected on

the ground that the land under the road and the parks does not

form more than 25% and, therefore, in view of Section 192 of the

Act no compensation was payable.

32.Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent is right in his

submission that these orders were not challenged. Instead, the

appellant filed Civil Suit No. 614 of 1983. However, this suit was

dismissed by the trial court. The appellant preferred appeal there

23

Page 24

against. This appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. It was the

contention of the appellant that this appeal was withdrawn in view

of consent order dated 20.5.1986 wherein it was agreed that an

application for demarcation will be submitted within a month and

demarcation shall be made in the presence of the parties and till

then respondent shall not demolish the disputed rooms. However,

from this the appellant cannot be allowed to contend that

objections had not been decided. The at the most, issue of

demarcation was to be settled as the appellant was raising this

issue time and again. However, it is accepted by the appellant

itself that demarcation was done on 19.8.1986.

33.From the aforesaid, we cannot agree with the contention of the

appellant that objections of the appellant were still pending. At

the same time it becomes clear that the only issue which

remained was about the demarcation and demarcation was also

carried out and the Patwari submitted his Report dated 19.8.1986.

34.Having said so, what we find is that this demarcation report

has altered the position. As per the demarcation Report of the

Patwari, 30 feet road as set out in the Town Planning Scheme does

24

Page 25

not exist in the revenue record. Once that be the position, how the

Scheme would be implemented is the poser. The High Court has

remarked that the appellant managed to get a wrong Report. At

the same time, what is the correct position at the site has also not

come on record. In a situation like this, we are of the opinion that

once the High Court observed that there was an error in the

demarcation Report, more appropriate action was to order fresh

demarcation.

35.In view of the above though we reject all the contentions of the

appellant, at the same time we modify the order of the High Court

to the extent that there shall be fresh demarcation done at the

site through Patwari. On the basis of said demarcation, if it is

found that in the revenue record 30 feet road exists, that area will

be clearly demarcated and delineated, and thereafter the Scheme

would be implemented. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out

within a period of two months from today. The appellant shall be

associated in the exercise of demarcation. Once this demarcation,

is done the parties shall abide by the same.

36.Appeal disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

25

Page 26

...….........................J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

…...........................J. [A.K. Sikri]

New Delhi April 22, 2014

26