MAHESH GROVER,J - (1.) THE Municipal Committee, Jagraon is in appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dated 15.11.1989.
(2.) SATWINDER Singh, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellant Municipal Committee, Jagraon praying for a direction to the latter to remove two shops depicted in red colour in the site plan and raised illegally in the said area in front of the shops belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. It was pleaded by the respondent that he was the owner in possession of the plot measuring 10 marlas out of the land measuring 4 kanals comprised in khewat No. 1781, khatauni No. 1853, Khasra No. 1321/1/2, as per jamabandi for the year 1967-68. On the said plot a shop-cum-dwelling unit was constructed after getting necessary sanction for the site plan from the Municipal Committee. Two shops were constructed on the site which were stated to be adjacent to the Tehsil Road, Jagraon the width of which is 82'6" from the area of Chowk Khangah to Sabji Mandi Chowk. In the aforesaid area there used to be existing Khokhas for shoe makers and others which were raised illegally and by encroaching the public land with the connivance of the appellant Committee. The Khokhas were 8' in breadth with varying lengths. The Committee took no action to remove the Khokhas from the road. The road in that area was very congested and narrow. In order to ease the traffic the plaintiff-respondent and other similarly situated persons agreed to leave 20' area for the Municipal Committee for the purpose of widening the Tehsil Road and for construction of another road from Khangah Chowk to Sajbi Mandi Chowk. They also agreed to forego compensation in lieu of 20' area to facilitate the above stated purpose. The appellant instead of utilising the land for the said purpose entered into an agreement with the occupiers of the Khokhas to construct a market named as Rajiv Market for them and also to widen the area of shops by encroachment upon the Tehsil Road. The market was forcibly constructed and two shops as depicted in red and marked ABCD in the site plan were constructed in front of the property of the plaintiff-respondent. As a result the breadth of the road was considerably reduced. The plaintiff- respondent challenged this action of the Municipal Committee to raise permanent construction and to change the character of the road by constructing a market thereon. It was further pleaded that construction of these shops had diminished the value and utility of the property of the plaintiff-respondent. The appellant Municipal Committee contested the suit and denied that the width of the road was 82'. It was pleaded that shops had been built on both sides of the road starting from the year 1975 onwards for allotment to those persons who had no shops. The shops were allotted to persons who were earlier operating from their Khokhas which were in existence on both sides of the Tehsil Road from Chowk Mohkem Din to Jewa Building. The shops were built as a replacement of Khokhas with the approval of the Government pursuant to 20- Point Programme sponsored by the government. It was further pleaded that there was a 20' wide thoroughfare between the chowk of shops of the Committee and the place where the plaintiff-respondent alleged to have its construction. The construction was sought to be justified on the ground of development and betterment of the public interest. The compromise as pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent was admitted but it was contended that on the strength of this compromise the plaintiff-respondent was estopped by his own conduct to file the present suit. The apart, it was pleaded that shortening of the width of the road was in public interest.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the notice served on the defendant is invalid ? OPD 4. Relief. The trial Court on the strength of the evidence before it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent vide judgment dated 15.5.1986, which resulted in appeal. The appeal was accepted and the findings of the learned trial Court were reversed vide judgment dated 15.11.1989. Aggrieved by the aforestated judgment of the Addl. District Judge, the Municipal Committee has preferred the Regular Second Appeal.;