- (1.) This order shall dispose of seven appeals bearing RSA No. 2578 of 1985 titled as Phool Singh v. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2573 of 1985 titled as Sumer Singh v. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2574 of 1985 titled as Shiv Lal v. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2575 of 1985 titled as Lachhu v. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2576 of 1985 titled as Smt. Om Wati and others v. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2577 of 1985 titled as Rajesh v. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator and RSA No. 2579 of 1985 titled as Ram Singh v. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator as the question involved in all these appeals is the same. However, the facts are extracted from RSA No. 2578 of 1985 titled as Phool Singh v. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator.
(2.) The present appeals are filed at the instance of the plaintiffs arising out of a suit for permanent injunction in which the plaintiffs had alleged that they are in possession of a shop and verandah situated in village Pathwari Mandir Road, Ballabhgarh, which was constructed more than one year ago and notice bearing No. 11410 dated 30.9.1982 purported to have been issued under Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 is illegal as the said notice could have been issued only within six months of the completion of construction. It is alleged that since the notice has been received after the expiry of one year of the construction of the shop, it has lost it's -importance and could not have been issued for interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from demolishing the property in their possession.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants who had also amended the written statement but the sum and substance of the reply is that the notice has been issued within six months of the construction of the shop.;