Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated July 17, 1985 and September 11, 1985, dismissing second appeals in limine. The dispute concerned unauthorized construction on lands over which the appellant Faridabad Complex Administration claimed title as successor-in-interest to Ballabgarh Municipality under the Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulation & Development) Act, 1972. The original suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from demolishing construction that they had made after purchasing the lands from Biharilal and others. The undisputed facts showed that Biharilal and Mahipal had attempted to construct shops on the lands; notices were issued to them for unauthorized construction; thereafter they sold the lands to the respondents. The notice under Section 208 of the Haryana Municipalities Act, 1976 was issued to Biharilal on March 18, 1982, whereas the construction was made sometime in February 1981. The respondents contended that the notice was beyond the six-month limitation prescribed under Section 208 and therefore invalid. The trial court accepted this plea and decreed the suit; the appellate court affirmed; and the High Court dismissed the second appeals in limine. The Supreme Court examined whether the notice was barred by limitation and whether the respondents had any right or title to the land. It noted that the appellant had asserted title over the land and the unauthorized construction in its written statement, and that witness D.W.4 Krishan Lal stated that notice was issued to Biharilal for unauthorized construction and Biharilal replied that he had already transferred the land. The Court observed that the respondents had purchased the properties from Biharilal and others, and there was no case that Biharilal had title independent of the Municipality. Consequently, the respondents were not owners and could not claim the benefit of the limitation under Section 208, which applies only when the person proceeding with construction is the owner and claims to have obtained permission. The Court held that all properties enumerated in Section 61(1) of the Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulation & Development) Act, 1972, which were possessed by Ballabgarh Municipality, stood transferred to and vested in the appellant by virtue of Section 15 of that Act. Specifically, clause (f) of Section 61(1) covered all lands transferred to the Committee by the State Government or acquired for public purpose. Therefore, the appellant was the true owner of the land. The Court found that the trial court's finding that the notice related to land other than the one involved in previous litigation was incorrect, and that the High Court had not applied its mind to these aspects. It concluded that the limitation of Section 208 would not arise in such circumstances and that no injunction could be issued against the true owner. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the decrees of the courts below, and dismissed the suits with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Unauthorized Construction - Limitation - Haryana Municipalities Act, 1976, Section 208 - The six-month limitation for issuing notice against unauthorized construction applies only when the person proceeding with construction is the owner and claims to have built in accordance with law. Since respondents purchased land from Biharilal, who had no title independent of the Municipality, they were not owners and the notice issued by the appellant was not barred by limitation. Held that the courts below erred in applying limitation and granting injunction. B) Property Law - Successor-in-Interest - Vesting of Municipal Property - Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulation & Development) Act, 1972, Sections 15 and 61(1)(f) - All properties enumerated in Section 61(1) vested in Ballabgarh Municipality stood transferred to and vested in the appellant as successor-in-interest by operation of Section 15 of the Act. The appellant was therefore the true owner of the land in question. Held that the appellant was entitled to protect its land from unauthorized construction. C) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Equitable Relief Against True Owner - Haryana Municipalities Act, 1976, Section 208; Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulation & Development) Act, 1972, Sections 15 and 61(1)(f) - No injunction can be issued against the true owner to restrain it from removing unauthorized construction on its own land. The limitation under Section 208 of the Haryana Municipalities Act would arise only if the person asserting ownership alleged violation of municipal rules; absent such claim, limitation did not arise. Held that appeals were allowed and suits dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice issued under Section 208 of the Haryana Municipalities Act, 1976 for unauthorized construction was barred by limitation; whether the respondents, as purchasers from Biharilal, had any title over the land; whether injunction could be issued against the true owner.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; suits dismissed; no costs. The Supreme Court held that the notice under Section 208 was not barred by limitation because respondents were not owners and the appellant was the true owner; no injunction could issue against the true owner.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 208 Haryana Municipalities Act
- 1976 must be issued within six months from date of unauthorized construction only when person proceeding with construction is owner
- limitation does not apply when person is in unauthorized occupation of municipal land
- all properties vested in Municipality stand transferred to successor administration under Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulation & Development) Act
- 1972
- no injunction can be issued against true owner to restrain removal of unauthorized construction
