Summary
Land of the plaintiff in Thanesar was reserved for a public park under Town Planning Scheme No. 5, sanctioned in 1975 under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. In 1986 he sued only for a permanent injunction to protect his possession. He sought no declaration that the scheme had lapsed under Section 203(6). The trial court granted the injunction, the first appellate court dismissed the suit, and the High Court in second appeal held him in possession and directed acquisition with compensation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the Municipality and a residents' welfare association. The plaintiff's 1983 letter admitted that the reserved 25% had been taken over, disputing only the calculation. The land had vested in the Municipal Committee and been developed as a park, so no injunction could issue. His contempt petition was closed.
Issues
- Whether a landowner whose land was reserved for a public park under a sanctioned town planning scheme, and who sought no declaration of lapse, could obtain a permanent injunction protecting his possession
- Whether construction on the park land during a status quo order amounted to contempt
Provisions considered
- Section 203(6), Haryana Municipal Act, 1973No declaration was sought that the town planning scheme had lapsed for non-implementation, so the question of lapse under Section 203(6) was left open and the reserved land was treated as vested in the Municipal Committee. (¶¶ 7.1, 8, 9)
Held
- The plaintiff sued only for a permanent injunction, without challenging the scheme or seeking a declaration of lapse, and conceded that he was not contending that it had lapsed. The question of lapse under Section 203(6) was therefore kept open. (¶¶ 7.1, 8)
- Read as a whole, the Municipality's witness stated that the development work was complete and that the plaintiff had re-entered and put up wire poles. The plaintiff's own 1983 letter admitted that possession of at least 25% under the scheme had been taken, disputing only the calculation, and he is bound by that admission. The courts below erred in finding him in possession. (¶ 7.2)
- Since the land reserved for a park under the sanctioned scheme had been taken over, developed as a park and vested in the Municipal Committee, the plaintiff was not entitled to a permanent injunction. (¶ 9)
- The status quo order related only to possession. Since possession had already been taken and the land vested in the Municipality, later improvements for a public park used by local people did not violate it, and the contempt proceedings were closed. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's judgment and the trial court's injunction decree were set aside, the first appellate court's dismissal of the suit restored, and the contempt petition disposed of; no costs.