RSA-4436-2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-4436-2011

Reserved on 17.11.2025

Date of decision: 27.11.2025

Uploaded on : 27.11.2025

Trevedi Lal and others ...Appellants

Versus

Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur ...Respondent

JC-H3BCR0P4RDYA13esARrv1A-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Budhiraja, Advocate and

Mr. Sangeet Pal Singh, Advocate

for the respondent.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by tho[aClcih,

– Onkar Singh (now represented through his legal reawo oitlhbo 0[lslci t

the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

,O f30PR5H-R A-iI2A2PR02t321eH2RKNAFRonRPCAR NI02elE seeking to

restrain the defendant–Municipal Council RSA-436S2021 I4NAT1AT HASEG

Hoshiarpur from se3ng up any Rehri market or making any fixtures or con-

4P-31eH24RHsA-RNI2FRiAI43-02BR5,RhI2IN4R56RiI-NI4R1omprised in Khewat

No.132, Khatouni No.147, bearing Khasra Nos. 46-R/2 (7-15), 3/1 (2-6), 8 (1-

3), 9/1 (1-13), as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, situated in revenue

estate of village Naloian, H.B. No.225, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, was

Page N: 1 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

dismissed by the trial Court on 08.12.2008, and the first appeal preferred

!PSpaPc:es’w,Pe:noP)aSPSpaPne)aP$eSaPo’PB?fB;f2B55.

9fC DoiPSpaPne.aPo$P o’Da’sa’ adPceiwanPnpe::P aPia$erred to by

their status before the trial Court.

4.1 [now MuicpaoclpC ’Do[pl o[ ot[Ma[AY[tDo[aClcih,[(l [tDlt[Do[c

exclusive owner in possession of the land in dispute, situated near the

bridge over Bhangi Choe, within the municipal limits of Hoshiarpur city.

According to him, the land was lying vacant and in his possession. While

cenns’bPoDaiPSpaP ismbaPo$P%pe’bsPrpoadPSpaPc:es’w,P’ow amPSpeSP'pisPls&e!

Kumar Sharma, Tehsildar, along with municipal officers and staff, was

standing near the suit property. On making inquiry,RPCARDYA13esARrv1A-RH5

the Municipal Council informed him that the property was being surveyed

5H-R1H24P-31e2BRIRUAC-0RiI-hAPRI2FR I-h02BR NI1AR5Hr trucks and other

commercial vehicles.

:f2C upaPc:es’w,PennaiSamPSpeSPSpaPciocaiS!P a:o’bam to him and

could not be used for any municipal purpose unless it was acquired in ac-

cordance with law. He further pleaded that despite psnPo &a wo’nPe’mPia4

F3A4P4ERPCARDYA13esARrv1A-R1NI0iAFR HcA-RPHRI -H -iate the property for

such purposes and did not accede to his demand. It was alleged that re-

peated requests to the defendant to admit his claim were refused, thereby

2A1A440PIe2BRPCARKN02BRH5RPCAR430PR4AAh02BR A-iI2A2PR02t321eH2RIBI024PRA2)

croachment and municipal interference.

5.1 Defendant’s stand : Hco’P’ow adPSpaPma$a’me’SPeccaeiamPe’m

in its wriIen statement raised various customary pra:s)s’ei!Po &a wo’nd

-ABI-F02BRiI02PI02Io0N0PnERNI1hRH5Rt3-04F01eH2RH5R1ivil court etc. On merits, it

was the specific stand of the defendant that the area in dispute, as per site

plan prepared by the Municipal Council, formed part of Town Planning

f1CAiAR8HO6ERF3NnR4I21eH2AFRonRPCARfPIPAR.HsA-2iA2P under relevant no-

Page N: 2 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

eK1IeH24R02RPCARnAI-4R5?;6RI2FR5?6;ORGPRcI4R NAIFAF that the scheme had

aIained finality and that 95% of the work under the scheme had already

been executed. As per the ownership statement in the scheme, the site in

dispute vested in the Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur and the khasra num-

oA-4R-AN0AFR3 H2RonRPCAR NI02elRF0FR2HPR1H--A4 H2FRto the site in dispute.

5.2 Defendant further pleaded that the site of Choe extended for

about 5 kms from Bahadurpur to Khanpur and that the khasra numbers

1NI0iAFRonRPCAR NI02elR5ANNRAN4AcCA-ARI2FRcA-AR2HPReven near the site in

dc aMtoe[Gt[(l [lCCosod[tDlt[tDo[aClcih,[Dld[ci htMted the suit with mala

KFAR02PA2eH2RPHRB-IoRi32010 INR -H A-PnORGPRcI4RIN4o stated that donkey

owners who used to take sand from the Choe had raised temporary struc-

tures at some parts of the site, which were removed by the Municipal

TH3210NRF3-02BRI2RKr A-IeH2RTNAI2LORfHiAR H-eH2RH5Rthe site had allegedly

been previously used as a chowk, where the Municipal Council used to

charge Tehbazari from Rehri owners selling vegetables and fruits.

5.3 It was further pleaded that the PWD was the owner of the road

from Parbhat Chowk to Goushala Bazar, that bridges over the Choe and the

bypass road had been constructed and maintained by PWD, and that the

link road from Dhobi Ghat to New Bhangi Bridge was handed over to the

Municipal Council by PWD. According to the defendant][(Doi[tDo[aClcih,

learnt that encroachments had been removed and a Rehri market was

flourishing at the site, he filed the present suit wiPCR3NPA-0H-RiHesA4ORJCA

suit was, thus, sought to be dismissed.

;OC JCAR NI02elRKNAFR-A N01IeH2ER1H2P-HsA-e2BRPCARIserments in

tDo[(wcIoi[ tlto)oit[lid[woctowlhis[tDo[pl o[l [ ot out in the plaint.

7.1  Findings of the trial Court : On the basis of the pleadings, issues

were framed and evidence was led by both sides. The trial Court, while no-

e102BRPCARtIiIoI2F0RA2P-0A4R4CHc02BRPCAR NI02elRI4Rowner of the khasra

Page N: 3 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

numbers detailed in the head-note of the plaint, proceeded to examine

cCAPCA-RM0'RPCAR0FA2ePnRH5RPCAR430PR -H A-PnERI4R1Nlc)od[AY[tDo[aClcih,]

stood established, and (ii) whether the defendant had encroached upon

I2nR H-eH2RH5R431CR -H A-PnO

6O, JCAR NI02elR-AN0AFR3 H2RPCAR-A H-PRH5RPCAROH1INRCommissioner

(Ex.P-8), as per which, one Balbir Singh was in illegal possession of some

4iINNR H-eH2ERH2AR:IcI2R73iI-RcI4R02R0NNABINR H44A4sion of another por-

eH2ERoA40FA4RAY04PA21ARH5RUAC-04RI2FRH2AR43BI-1I2ARmachine in an area

measuring about 1 kanal 12 marlas, whereas the remaining property was

Nn02BRsI1I2PORJCARP-0INRTH3-PERCHcAsA-ER2He1AFRPCIP the name of the Muni-

cipal Council did not figure in the report as having encroached upon any

part of the property.

6O9OC JCARP-0INRTH3-PRIN4HR-A5A--AFRPHRPCARPA4eiH2nRof DW1 Birbal

Dass, an official of the Municipal Council, who stated that donkey owners

CIFR-I04AFRPAi H-I-nR1H24P-31eH24RcC01CRcA-AR-AiHsAd during “Opera-

eH2RTNAI2LRI2FRPCIPRPCAR632010 INRTHii0IAARCIFR2HPRgot any Rehri parked

HsA-RPCAR NI02elP4RNI2FORJCH3BCRPCARc0P2A44RIFi0IAF that Tehbazari record

was available with the Municipal Council, the plainelRF0FR2HPR43iiH2R2H-

produce any such record to show that the Rehris standing on site were pay-

ing Tehbazari to the defendant.

6O:OC GHNF02BRPCIPRMI'RPCAR NI02elRCIFR5I0NAFRPHR -Hve that the al-

leged Rehri market had any nexus with the Municipal Council, and (b) the

report of the Local Commissioner did not prove encroachment by the de-

fendant, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 08.12.2008.

8.1 Findings of the First Appellate Court : The First Appellate Court

re-appraised the evidence and broadly affirmed the findings of the trial

TH3-PORGPRHo4A-sAFRPCIPRPCAR NI02elRCIFR5I0NAFRPHRA4PIoN04CRPCAR0FA2ePnRH5

the “property in dispute” as being the same land, which he owned as per

Page N: 4 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

the revenue record. PW3 Onkar Singh himself admiIed that he was owner

of 12 kanals 17 marlas of land “near” the disputed property and did not

specifically state the exact site, where the Rehri market was alleged to ex-

ist.

>O, CJCARd ANNIPARTH3-PR53-PCA-R2He1AFRPCIPR02RPCARjamabandi

entries, the land comprising Khasra Nos. 46-R/2, 3/1, 8 and 9/1 was de-

41-0oAFRI4RKBI0-Ri3ih02RTCHALRI2FR02RPCAR13NesIeH2Rcolumn, the entry was

K6IhoHHMIRiINhII2LER02F01Ie2BR2H2)13NesIoNARNI2FRIFjoining the Choe.

The Appellate Court took the view that in the absence of proper, rule-com-

N0I2PRFAiI-1IeH2ER0PRcI4R2HPR H440oNARPHR1H--ANIPA these khasra numbers

with the physical site, where the Rehri market was alleged to have been es-

tablished.

8.3 The First Appellate Court also discarded the Local Commis-

sioner’s report, inter alia, on the ground that theRFAiI-1IeH2RcI4R2HPR1I-)

ried out in accordance with relevant High Court Rules and Orders; pucca

points were not affixed; and the officials of the Municipal Council were not

I44H10IPAFRIPRPCAReiARH5RFAiI-1IeH2ORUAN0I21ARcI4R laced on judicial pre-

cedents of this Court holding that such a report, not based on proper de-

iI-1IeH2RI2FR2HPRI44H10Ie2BRPCARIlA1PAFR I-PnER1I22ot be safely relied

upon.

8.4  On this reasoning, the First Appellate Court concluded that: (i)

PCAR NI02elRCIFR5I0NAFRPHR -HsARPCIPRPCAR -H A-PnR0n dispute formed part of

his khasra numbers; (ii) it had not been established that the property did

not form part of Town Planning Scheme No.7; and (iii) no encroachment by

the Municipal Council was proved. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on

09.06.2011.

Page N: 5 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

Proceedings in second appeal and order for fresh deFAT A3H41N

9.  Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the ap-

pellant contended before this Court that the Courts below had mis-appreci-

IPAFRPCARAs0FA21AER I-e13NI-NnRPCAROH1INRTHii0440H2er’s report and the

revenue record, and had erroneously held that the ima’wS!Po$PSpaPciocaiS!

and encroachment by the Municipal Council were not established.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent suppor-

ted the judgments of the Courts below and submiIed that no interference

in second appeal was called for.

55OC TH240FA-02B R PCIP R PCA R F04 3PA R A44A2eINNn R -AsHNsAd around

whether encroachment existed over Khasra Nos. 46-R/2 (7-15), 3/1 (2-6), 8

(1-3), 9/1 (1-13), measuring 12 kanals 17 marlas, as per jamabandi for the

!aeiP5??;4?6dPe’mP’ow s’bPSpaP o’SioDain!P aS(aa’PSpaPceiwanPiabeims’b

PCARI1P3INRNH1IeH2RI2FR0FA2ePnRH5RPCAR40PAERPC04RTHurt, vide order dated

08.12.2016, deemed it appropriate, in the interest H5Rt34e1AERPHRF0-A1PRI

5-A4CER-3NA)1Hi N0I2PRFAiI-1IeH2ORJCARAA 3PnRTHii04sioner, Hoshiarpur

was directed to appoint the Tehsildar to demarcate SpaPciocaiwanPe$oia4

)a’wo’amdPs’Pe oime’ aP(sSpP:e(dPs’PSpaPciana’ aPo$P oSpPceiwandP(sSp

the assistance of the revenue record concerning KhanieP8onfP)a’wo’amP !

SpaPc:es’w,PenP(a::PenP7penieP8of:;<5BdPo’P(ps pPSpe respondent had

placed reliance.

5,OC JC04RF0-A1eH2ER02RA44A21AERIiH32PAFRPHR4AAh02BRemmswo’e:PaDsm4

ence in exercise of powers akin to those under Order XLI Rule 27 read with

fA1eH2R5B6RT:TERPHR1NI-05nRPCAR5I1P3INRF04 3PAR-ABIims’bPsma’wS!Pe’mP:o e4

eH2RH5RPCAR430PRNI2FERI2RAYA-104AR A-i0440oNAR02R4Acond appeal where such

evidence is necessary to pronounce judgment and botpPceiwanPeiaPe,oimam

full opportunity.

Page N: 6 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

13.  Pursuant to the above order, the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur conduc-

PAFRFAiI-1IeH2RI2FR43oi0IAFRC04R-A H-PRI22AYAFRc0PC affidavit dated

09.02.2017, along with site plan and notes. ASer se3ng out the methodo-

NHBnRI2FRoI1hB-H32FERPCARH A-IesAR1H21N340H24R-A1H-ded by the Tehsildar

are that:

RIn Khasra No.46//3/1, over an area of about 1 kanal 10 marlas, a

Sabzi Mandi/Rehri Market stands constructed;

RG2RHPCA-R H-eH24RH5R7CI4-IR8H4OR:;<<,ER>RI2FR?<5ERPhere exist a

mandir, roads, scrap material and some shops, with specific meas-

urements and areas described in karams and marlas;

RIn Khasra Nos. 46//10/2 and 46//10/3, a Gaushala is being construc-

PAFRonRPCAR632010 INRTH- H-IeH2ERGH4C0I- 3-O

5:OC JCARi32010 INRoHFnRKNAFRHotA1eH24RPHRPCARFAiI-1IeH2R-A H-PE

which were taken on record and examined by this Court. Having perused

PCAR-A H-PERPCAR40PAR NI2RI2FRPCARHotA1eH24ERPC04RTourt found no infirmity

cC01CRcH3NFRcI--I2PRF041I-F02BRPCARFAiI-1IeH2ER I-ecularly as it was car-

ried out by a senior revenue official (Tehsildar) in the presence of the

I-eA4ERH2RPCARoI404RH5R-AsA23AR-A1H-FRI2FR02R1Hi Niance with the earlier

F0-A1eH24RH5RPC04RTH3-PO

15.  ThereaSer, this Court, vide order dated 17.12.2019, specifically

2He1AFRPCIPRI4R A-RPCARFAiI-1IeH2R-A H-PRI2FRPCAR40te plan prepared by

the Tehsildar, encroachment of 1 kanal 10 marlas of Sabzi Rehri Market had

been found in Khasra No.46//3/1 and that encroachments and roads were

also reflected in respect of Khasra Nos. 46//2, 8 and 9/1. Time was granted

PHR1H324ANR5H-RPCAR-A4 H2FA2PRPHRHoPI02R024P-31eH24 with regard to the

roads shown in the site plan and notes.

Page N: 7 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

16.  In compliance, an affidavit dated 27.03.2025 was filed by

Sandeep Kumar, Joint Commissioner, Municipal CorporIeH2ERGH4C0I- 3-ORG2

this affidavit, it has been categorically stated that the Municipal Corpora-

eH2RCI4R2HR1H21A-2Rc0PC7

Rthe Rehri market as shown at Serial No.1 in the notes of the site plan;

Rthe mandir as shown at Serial No.4 in the notes of the site plan; and

Rthe roads as shown at Serial Nos.5, 6 and 8 in the notes of the site

plan,

I4RiA2eH2AFR02RPCARJAC40NFI-P4R-A H-PRFIPAFRB>OB,O,017, and that the said

roads are constructed and maintained by the PWD Department.

17.  The stand so taken in the affidavit is clearly at variance with

the earlier pleadings of the defendant, wherein it had been asserted that

the site in dispute vested in the Municipal Council, formed part of Town

Planning Scheme No.7, that part of the site had been used as a chowk,

where the Municipal Council charged Tehbazari from Rehri owners selling

sABAPIoNA4RI2FR5-30P4ERI2FRPCIPRF3-02BRKr A-IeH2RTNean” it was the Muni-

cipal Council, which had removed temporary structures raised by donkey

owners at the site.

18. Based upon all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is

I-B3AFRonRNAI-2AFR1H324ANR5H-RPCARI ANNI2P) NI02elRPCIPR NI02el)I ANNI2P

-A4A-sA4RC04R-0BCPRPHRPIhARI -H -0IPARNABINRI1eH24 against the encroachers

of his property as shown at Sr. No. 2 to 8 of the dAiI-1IeH2R-A H-PRI2FRPCA

annexed site plan. However, as far as the Rehri market shown at Sr. No. 1 is

1H21A-2AFER0PR04RPCARi32010 INR1H- H-IeH2)FA5A2FI2P, which has to take the

responsibility to remove that encroachment and thatR2A1A44I-nRF0-A1eH2R04

required to be given by this Court.

19. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the

Page N: 8 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

respondent-defendant that respondent has no concern with any such Rehri

)ei.aSPe’mPSpaia$oiadPsSPsnP$oiPSpaPc:es’w,PSoPSe.aPecciociseSaPe wo’Pebes’nS

SpaPcaoc:adP(poPpeDaPa’ ioe pamPe’!Pcoiwo’Po$PSpaPcroperty and who

park their Rehris etc. at the land. Learned counsel submits that defendant

TH- H-IeH2R 1I22HP R PIhA RI2n R 431CR -A4 H240o0N0Pn RPHR -emove the Rehri

market.

20. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and

have appraised the record carefully.

PJB0DA43AS1YJI03H401HO1SAe1N

21.  In the above factual backdrop and in the light of the fresh

1H3-P)F0-A1PAFRFAiI-1IeH2R-A H-PERPCAR5HNNHc02BR43o4PI2eINRF3A4eH24RH5

:e(PeisnaP$oiP o’nsmaiewo’Ps’PSpsnPna o’mPeccae:"

[ECAPCA-ER02Rs0AcRH5RPCARFAiI-1IeH2R1H2F31PAFRonRPCA Tehsil-

dar in compliance with the order of this Court, the concurrent

findings of the Courts below regarding non-establishment of

PCAR0FA2ePnRH5RPCAR430PR -H A-PnRI2FRIo4A21ARH5RA21roachment

by the defendant can be sustained?

[Whether, in the face of the defendant’s own pleadings admit-

e2BR0P4R I4PR34ARH5RPCAR40PARI4RIR1CHchRI2FR1CI-B02g Tehbazari

5-HiRUAC-0RHc2A-4ERPCARFA5A2FI2PL632010 INRTH- H-Ieon can

now legally shirk its responsibility to remove the encroach-

ment in the form of a Rehri market found to be exisw’bPo’PSpa

aClcih,P [ClidT

,,OC aHPCRPCA4ARF3A4eH24RBHRPHRPCAR-HHPRH5RPCARF04 3te and arise

squarely from the record as now clarified by the Court-directed demarca-

wo’fPupa!dPSpaia$oiadP$e::P(sSps’PSpaPe) sSPo$P'a won 100 CPC and warrant

Page N: 9 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

interference with the concurrent findings, which stood rendered on a ma-

PA-0INNnR021Hi NAPARI2FR321A-PI02R5I1P3INR5H32FIeH2.

Discussion and legal reasoning :

,9OC JCARTH3-P4RoANHcRFA1N02AFR-AN0A5RA44A2eINNnRH2Rthe ground that

SpaPc:es’w,PpemP$es:amPSoPanSe :snpPSpeSPSpaPnsSadPwhere the Rehri market

stood was the same as the land owned by him as per the jamabandi entries.

It is true that jamabandi entries, by themselves, may not conclusively estab-

:snpPSpaPcia snaPsma’wS!Pe’mP:o ewo’Po$P:e’mPo’PSpa spot, especially when

the land is described as “gair mumkin Choe” and there is surrounding urban

maDa:oc)a’SfPga’ adPciocaiPma)ei ewo’dP enamPo’PiaDenue map and

measurements, becomes crucial.

24.  It is precisely to cure this deficiency that this Court directed de-

iI-1IeH2RPC-H3BCRPCARJAC40NFI-R02RPCAR -A4A21ARH5RooSpPceiwanfPupaPma4

)ei ewo’PiacoiSP’o(P :aei:!Pe’mP eSabois e::!P)ecnPthe physical site to

Khasra Nos. 46//2, 46//3/1, 46//8 and 46//9/1 and specifies that in Khasra

No.46//3/1, an area of about 1 kanal 10 marlas is occupied by the Sabzi

Rehri Market. This directly connects the site of encroachment with the

hCI4-IR23ioA-4RiA2eH2AFR02RPCARCAIF)2HPARH5RPCAR NIint and in the

tIiIoI2F0R02RPCAR NI02elP4R5IsH3-O

,=OC r21AR431CRFAiI-1IeH2ER1I--0AFRH3PRonRIR1Hi APA2t revenue

I3PCH-0PnR02RPCAR -A4A21ARH5RPCAR I-eA4ER04RI11A PAd by the Court aSer con-

nsmais’bPe’mPia&a w’bPSpaPo &a wo’nPo$PSpaPma$a’me’t, the earlier view that

SpaPsma’wS!Po$PSpaPciocaiS!P(enP’oSPanSe :snpamdP ennot be sustained. The

5H32FIeH2RH5RPCAR1H213--A2PRK2F02B4RPC34R4PI2F4RF04c:e amfPupaPc:es’w,Pn

ePNARPHRPCA4ARhCI4-IR23ioA-4RcI4R2AsA-R4A-0H34NnRF0sputed; rather, even

PCARP-0INRTH3-PR -H1AAFAFRH2RPCAR5HHe2BRPCIPRCARcI4 owner of the land as

per jamabandi. The only doubt was with respect to tpaPcp!ns e:P oiia:ewo’

Page N: 10 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

between his khasra numbers and the actual site of the Rehri market, a

doubt which now stands resolved in his favour.

26.  In such circumstances, to deny relief despite a clear demarca-

eH2RcH3NFRIiH32PRPHR A-i0(2BRA21-HI1CA-4RPHR1H2e23A on private prop-

A-PnRiA-ANnRoA1I34AERIPRI2RAI-N0A-R4PIBARH5RN0eBIeH2ERPCAR0FA2ePnRcI4R2HP

4Ie45I1PH-0NnRA4PIoN04CAFORJC04RTH3-PERsA4PAFRc0PCRthe power to correct sub-

4PI2eINRA--H-4RH5RNIcRI-0402BR5-HiRi04I -A10IeH2RHf material evidence,

cannot countenance such a result.

27.  The second limb of the reasoning of the Courts below was that

no encroachment by the Municipal Council was proved, as (a) the Local

Commissioner’s report did not expressly name the Municipal Council as an

encroacher, and (b) no Tehbazari record was produced to show that the

UAC-04RcA-AR4PIeH2AFRPCA-AR32FA-RPCARI3PCH-0PnRH5RPhe Municipal Council.

28.  Two aspects are now material:

RD0-4PERPCARFAiI-1IeH2R-A H-PRH5RPCARJAC40NFI-RCI4R1onfirmed that

there is a Sabzi Rehri Market occupying 1 kanal 10 marlas in Khasra

8HO:;<<9<5ERcC01CR5H-i4R I-PRH5RPCAR NI02elP4RNI2FO

RSecond, in the wriIen statement, the defendant itself pleaded that

some part of the site was earlier used as a chowk and that the Muni-

cipal Council used to charge Tehbazari from the Rehri owners, who

stood there for selling vegetables, fruits etc., and that during “Opera-

eH2RTNAI2LR0PRcI4RPCAR632010 INRTH3210NERcC01CR-AiHved temporary

structures of donkey owners.

29.  An admission in pleadings is the best form of evidence and re-

quires no further proof. The defendant cannot, at a later stage, resile from

or dilute its clear admission that it was exercising control over the site by

NAsn02BRJACoIMI-0RI2FRonR-AB3NIe2BRPCAR -A4A21ARH5RRehris and other tem-

Page N: 11 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

porary structures. The subsequent plea, through an affidavit, that the Muni-

10 INRTH- H-IeH2RCI4RK2HR1H21A-2LRc0PCRPCARUAC-0RiIrket, cannot efface

the earlier stand nor can it be permiIed to be used as a device to shirk re-

sponsibility.

30.  Even otherwise, as a maIer of public law, a municipal body is

under a statutory duty to regulate and, where necessary, remove unauthor-

ized encroachments upon public streets, public places or private land,

where encroachments disturb public order or impede lawful use. Where

the encroachment has grown with its tacit permission and under its regu-

latory regime, such as Tehbazari, the municipal body cannot wash its hands

HlRPCAR40P3IeH2RI2FR1Hi ANRIR -0sIPARNI2F)Hc2A-RPHR02F0s0F3INNnRN0eBIPA

IBI024PRAI1CR4iINNRA21-HI1CA-ER I-e13NI-NnRcCA2RPCAir presence has been

5I10N0PIPAFRonRi32010 INRI1eH24RH-RHi0440H24O

95OC G2RPCAR -A4A2PR1I4AERPCAR NI02elP4RB-0AsI21AR02 the suit was not

that each Rehri owner be personally evicted by passing a decree against

him, but that the Municipal Council be restrained f-HiR NI2e2BER A-i0(2B

or regularizing a Rehri market on his land. In substance, the relief claimed is

H2ARH5R -HC0o0PH-nRI2FRiI2FIPH-nR02t321eH2RIBI024PRthe municipal body, to

-AsA2PR0PR5-HiR3402BRH-R A-i0(2BR34ARH5RPCAR NI02eff’s land for a Rehri

iI-hAPORr21ARPCARNI2FR04R5H32FERH2RFAiI-1IeH2ERPHRoANH2BRPHRPCAR NI02el

and there exists a Rehri market which, by defendant’s own pleadings, had

been allowed and regulated by it, a decree of mandaPH-nR02t321eH2RF0-A1P)

ing the municipal body to remove such encroachment,R04R53NNnRt34eKAFO

9,OC JCARI-B3iA2PRH5RPCAR632010 INRTH- H-IeH2RPCIPR0t has “no con-

1A-2LRc0PCRPCARAY04e2BRUAC-0RiI-hAPR1I22HPRoARI11A ted. A party cannot be

permiIed to approbate and reprobate in the same breIPCRLRK-4PRI44A-e2B

1H2P-HNRI2FR-AB3NIPH-nR HcA-RHsA-RPCAR40PARPHRt34e5y its conduct, and later

Page N: 12 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

disowning all concern, when called upon to discharge the corresponding re-

sponsibility to remove encroachment. Such a stand is legally untenable.

99OC dPRPCAR4IiAReiAER0PR04RAF3INNnRP-3ARPCIPRPC04RTourt cannot, in

these proceedings, adjudicate upon the rights and ooN0BIeH24RH5R02F0s0F3IN

Rehri owners, or other encroachers, who are not pareA4RPHRPCAR430PER2H-R1I2

0PRFA10FARF04 3PA4RoAPcAA2RPCAR NI02elRI2FR A-4H24Rwhose names are re-

Na SamPeSP'aise:P8onf2PSoP>Po$PSpaPma)ei ewo’PiacoiSfPupaPc:es’w,PnPisbpSn

vis-à-vis them must be worked out in appropriate proceedings. However, in

so far as the respondent municipal body, as a statutory authority, is con-

cerned, it can certainly be directed to remove encroachment and to ensure

SpeSPSpaPc:es’w,PnP:e’mdPenPsma’w1amPeSP'aise:P8of5Ps’PSpaPma)ei ewo’Pia4

port, is restored to him.

34.  This approach is also consistent with the principle that the

TH3-PER I-e13NI-NnR02R4A1H2FRI AINER04R2HPR HcA-NAss to mould relief to do

1Hi NAPARt34e1ARoAPcAA2RPCAR I-eA4ERH21ARPCARiIPA-0al facts stand clari-

KAFRI2FRPCAR43o4PI2eINRF3A4eH24RH5RNIcRI-ARI24cA-AF in favour of the ap-

pellant.

rH4 SJ0-H41v1s-TI 3H401N

35.  In view of the discussion above, both the substI2eINRF3A4eH24

of law stand answered in favour of the appellant and against the respond-

A2PL632010 INRTH- H-IeH2ORJCAR1H213--A2PRK2F02B4RH5 the Courts below, to

PCARAYPA2PRPCAnR-A4PRH2R2H2)0FA2eK1IeH2RH5RPCAR430P property and absence

of encroachment by the Municipal Council, cannot be sustained in the light

H5RPCARTH3-P)F0-A1PAFRFAiI-1IeH2RI2FRPCARFA5A2FI2PPs own pleadings.

36.  Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is partly al-

lowed in the following terms:

(a)  The judgments and decrees of the trial Court dated 08.12.2008

and of the First Appellate Court dated 09.06.2011 are set aside to the ex-

Page N: 13 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

PA2PRPCAnRF04i044RPCAR430PR02R-ANIeH2RPHRPCIPR I-PRof the suit land, which is

4CHc2RIPRfA-0INR8HO5R02RPCARFAiI-1IeH2R-A H-PRH5RPCe Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur

(Sabzi Rehri Market) over 1 kanal 10 marlas in Khasra No.46//3/1.

Mo'C dRFA1-AARH5RiI2FIPH-nR02t321eH2R04RCA-AonR I44AFERF0-A1e2B

PCARFA5A2FI2PL632010 INRTH3210N<TH- H-IeH2ERGH4C0I-pur to remove the

A2e-ARA21-HI1CiA2PR02RPCAR5H-iRH5RPCARUAC-0RiI-hAPRfrom the land shown

IPRfA-0INR8HO5R02RPCARFAiI-1IeH2R-A H-PRI2FRPHRCI2F over vacant and

AI1A53NR H44A440H2RH5RPCAR4I0FR H-eH2RPHRPCAR NI02el<I ANNI2P4O

(c)  It shall be the duty and responsibility of the defendant–Muni-

10 INRTH3210N<TH- H-IeH2RPHRPIhARINNR2A1A44I-nR4PA s, including seeking as-

sistance from the local police and district adminisP-IeH2ERPHRA243-AR-AiHsIN

of the Rehri market and other unauthorized construceH24<KYP3-A4R5-HiRPCA

said land within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of six

months.

MF'C JCAR632010 INRTH3210N<TH- H-IeH2R4CINNRoARIPRN0berty, in co-

H-F02IeH2Rc0PCRPCAR.HsA-2iA2PRH-R1H21A-2AFRI3PCH-0ees, to explore the

H440o0N0PnRH5R -Hs0F02BRI2RINPA-2IesAR40PARPHRPCARaffected Rehri owners, so

that they are not leS remediless. However, the mere absence or non-avail-

Io0N0PnRH5RI2RINPA-2IesAR40PAR4CINNR2HPRoARIRB-H32F to delay or deny removal

H5RA21-HI1CiA2PR5-HiRPCAR NI02elP4RNI2FO

MA'C G2R-A4 A1PRH5RPCAR-AiI0202BR H-eH24RH5RPCARNI2F/suit property

and encroachments reflected at Serial Nos.2 to 8 in PCARFAiI-1IeH2R-A H-PE

0PR04R1NI-0KAFRPCIPR2HRIFt3F01IeH2R04RoA02BRiIFAR02 the present proceedings,

I2FRPCAR NI02el<I ANNI2P4R4CINNRoARIPRN0oA-PnRPHRPake such appropriate legal

remedies, as may be available to them in law against the concerned en-

croachers/occupants.

Page N: 14 of total 15 Pages

RSA-4436-2011

96OC f3otA1PRPHRPCARIoHsARF0-A1eH24RI2FR1NI-0K1IeH24, the appeal

stands partly allowed. Decree-sheet be prepared accH-F02BNnORAAiI-1IeH2

Report of Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur alongwith annexed site plan prepared by

him, shall form part & parcel of the decree-sheet. There shall be no order

as to costs

.

27.11.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

Yogesh JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

Page N: 15 of total 15 Pages