RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) ALL these appeals are being decided by a common judgment as the matter in issue in all these appeals is interconnected and common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being taken from the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2003 of the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri which is common to all the appeals. One Darbari Lal (since deceased) and Jesico Agro Engineering Private Limited (appellants in RSA No.4208 of 2003 arising out of Civil Suit No.549 of 1992) were owners in possession of some land situated within the Municipal limits of Jagadhri. They carved out a colony over the said land and named it as 'Jesico Colony'. Site plan of the Colony (Ex.P2 on the file of Civil Suit No.549 of 1992) was submitted to the Municipal Committee, Jagadhri for approval, which was approved in the month of April 1968. Some vacant area was left in the Colony for use as streets and parks.
(2.) IN the instant appeals, the dispute is over two parks shown by letters 'A' and 'B' in the site plan (Ex.P2) (hereinafter referred to as, 'the suit property'). The area of park 'A' is 987 1/9 square yards and that of park 'B' is 400 square yards. In the year 1992, Darbari Lal and Jesico Agro through its Managing Director applied to the Municipal Committee for raising construction over the suit property claiming their title. They further wanted to divide the suit property into small plots. However, the Municipal Committee filed a Civil Suit bearing No.549 of 1992 against them seeking a decree for injunction restraining them from raising any construction over the suit property and also from converting the same into plots. Case of the Municipal Committee is that all the streets and parks left in the Colony vest in the Committee and Darbari Lal etc. have no right therein either to raise any construction thereon or to carve out the same into plots. After filing of the suit, the Municipal Committee informed Darbari Lal and Jesico Agro vide letter dated 12.08.1992 that their plan to raise construction over the suit property cannot be approved and asked them to wait for the decision of the Court. However, Darbari Lal and Jesico Agro filed an appeal against the aforesaid order/letter of the Municipal Committee before the SDM, Jagadhri under Section 240 of the Haryana Municipal Act; who accepted the appeal vide order dated 12.01.1993 on the ground that Darbari Lal and Jasico Agro were recorded as owners of the suit property with houses constructed thereon and the Municipal Committee has failed to submit any Town Planning Scheme. After acceptance of the appeal, Darbari Lal and Jesico Agro carved out plots over the suit property and sold them to different persons. One plot was sold to Darshan Lal and his son Pardeep Kumar i.e. plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.607 of 1993, whereas another plot was sold to Parshotam Lal and his son Gaurav i.e. plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.506 of 1994 and further one plot was sold to Murti Devi, plaintiff in Civil Suit No.246 of 1996. After purchasing the plots, the plaintiffs of all these Civil Suits raised construction thereon. The Municipal Committee, Jagadhri served notices upon them under Section 181(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') for raising construction over the Municipal land illegally and they were asked to remove the encroachments. In the aforesaid Civil Suits, notices were challenged and a decree for injunction was sought to restrain the Municipal Committee from demolishing their constructions. The Municipal Committee contested all the three Civil Suits on the ground that the construction has been raised on the Municipal land and thus, the Committee was within its powers to demolish the same. After holding trial, Civil Suit No.549 of 1992 filed by Municipal Committee and the Civil Suit filed by Parshotam Lal and his son Gaurav bearing No.506 of 1994 were dismissed. However, the Civil Suit filed by Murti Devi i.e. Civil Suit No.246 of 1996 and the one filed by Darshan Lal and his son Pardeep Kumar i.e. Civil Suit No.607 of 1993 were decreed. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the trial Court, the affected parties filed appeals, which were decided by the first appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 01.08.2003. While deciding the aforesaid appeals, the first appellate Court held that the suit property, being parks, as shown by Darbari Lal and Jesico Agro in the site plan submitted as Ex.P2 for carving out a colony known as Jesico Colony, vested in the Municipal Committee, Jagadhri by virtue of Section 61 of the Municipal Committees Act, and thus, allowed Civil Appeal No.40 of 2002 titled as 'Municipal Committee v. Jesico Agro Engineering Pvt. Ltd.' and decreed the suit of the Municipal Committee, Jagadhri restraining the defendants in Civil Suit No.549 of 1992 from raising any construction over the suit property and from converting the same into small plots. Since during the pendency of the suit, defendants had converted the suit property into small plots and sold those plots to different persons, who have raised construction thereon, a decree for mandatory injunction was passed directing the defendants and subsequent transferees to remove the encroachments and to restore the suit property to its original shape for use as parks.
(3.) HOWEVER , appeals bearing No.42 of 2002 and 145 of 2000 filed on behalf of the Municipal Committee were dismissed being incompetent and it was made clear that decision in these appeals will not affect the rights of the Municipal Committee to get the suit property restored to its original shape and the plaintiffs in these appeals do not have any independent right in the suit property as they were claiming their rights through Darbari Lal and Jesico Agro against whom the decree for mandatory injunction has been passed. Civil Appeal No.41 of 2001 was also dismissed being filed by the subsequent vendees. Still not satisfied, Darbari Lal and Jesico Agro i.e. the defendants in Civil Suit No.549 of 1992 and Parshotam Lal and his son Gaurav (i.e. plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.506 of 1994 and appellants in Civil Appeal No.41 of 2001) have filed regular second appeals bearing No.4208 of 2003 and 4814 of 2003 respectively. Whereas Municipal Committee, Jagadhri (plaintiff in Civil Suit No.549 of 1992 and appellant in Civil Appeal No.40 of 2002) has also filed RSA No.5121 of 2003. Municipal Committee, Jagadhri (defendant in Civil Suit No.607 of 1993 and Civil Suit No.246 of 1996 and appellant in Civil Appeal No.145 of 2000 and Civil Appeal No.42 of 2002) has also filed RSA Nos.855 & 856 of 2005.;