In a second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction to claim right of passage through green belt land in Sector 17, Gurgaon, the Allahabad High Court found no patent illegality. The court held there was no evidence of prior passage use before acquisition and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 02.09.2011
RSA No.4090 of 2000 (O&M)
Sehaj Ram (dead) through LRs
…Appellants
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Ms. Avinash Mandla, Advocate, for Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate, for Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate, for the respondents.
Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the newly added respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction to claim right of passage through the portion marked ‘EFGH’ between plot Nos.155/7 and 239/17, Village Sukhrali, Gurgaon was dismissed.
The plaintiff claims right of ingress and egress over the said land on the basis of communication dated 01.02.1989 Ex.PA, whereby the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Board has communicated that the appellant can use the vacant land between plot Nos.155/7 and 239/17. It is pleaded by the appellant that he has been using the said passage through
RSA No.4090 of 2000 (O&M)
2
Sector 17 since the time of construction of the house like other occupants of the locality and that he has no other passage to approach his house.
The stand of the defendants was that the land in dispute has been acquired and has been left as green belt. Therefore, the appellant does not have any right of easement. Letter dated 01.02.1989 was issued by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority as at that time, the land was lying vacant. But now the land has been developed, therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be used as passage.
Both the Courts have dismissed the suit holding that when the letter dated 01.02.1989 was issued, at that time land of the passage and the land adjoining to it was lying vacant but now Sector-17 has been developed and the allottees of the plots have been allotted plots with the understanding that such land is a green belt, therefore, it cannot be permitted to be used as passage.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, but do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court.
The entire claim of the plaintiff is based upon communication dated 01.02.1989 Ex.PA, whereby the appellant was permitted to use the said portion to approach his residential house. But there is no evidence led by the plaintiff that the land marked as ‘EFGH’ was the land used as passage prior to acquisition of land by State Government.
Site plan Ex.PB shows that on the western side of the residential house of the appellant, shamlat deh land as well as agricultural land is situated. No part of the land, which is now part of Sector 17 was being used as passage, therefore, the appellant cannot claim right of easement through such land. No part of the land of the plaintiff has been
RSA No.4090 of 2000 (O&M)
3
acquired by Haryana Urban Development Authority. Therefore, Haryana Urban Development Authority is under no obligation to provide access to the appellant from the land acquired by them. If the appellant does not have any access to his land, his remedy lies to claim the same from the agricultural land/ shamlat deh, but not from the developed land of Haryana Urban Development Authority, falling on the eastern side. Portion ‘EFGH’ is a part of green belt and is required to be maintained by Haryana Urban Development Authority as such. The appellant has sought convenient method to raise claim against urban property situated close to his house, though, his house continues to be part of agricultural land.
Therefore, I do not find there is any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in second appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
02.09.2011 Vimal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any substantial question of law arising from the dismissal of the second appeal against the judgment and decree.
Whether the appellant has a right of easement for ingress and egress over the green belt land acquired by the HUDA.
Sehaj Ram (LRs)
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
