This appeal challenged an order allotting a shop to a third party based on a suit for declaration regarding possession of a specific shop after demolition and reconstruction. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed.
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.
RSA No.2105 of 1985
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2105 of 1985 Date of decision:05.08.2013
Harish Chand Duggal and others
....Appellants
Versus
Waryam Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Advocate for Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
Suit for declaration was filed by the appellants by pleading that their father was in possession over the shop in question and running the same being Halwai. Plaintiff/appellants used to assist their father to run the shop for last 25 years. No portion of the shop was in possession of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is running the shop of Halwai alongwith his brother on the northern side of the shop of appellant/plaintiffs which is adjoining to the shop of appellants. After demolishing the shops Improvement Trust, Ambala constructed new shops. As per rules shops were to be allotted to the shopkeepers already in possession of their shops in the said area. respondent No.1 was wrongly allotted the shop by respondent No.2, which was in possession of respondent No.1.
Kadian Savita 2013.08.07 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2105 of 1985
2
Upon notice separate written statements were filed by both the defendants. It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that suit was not maintainable as statutory notice was not served upon it. Also, it was pleaded by both the defendants that new shops were constructed in scheme No.9 and those shops were allotted to the persons who were already occupying the old shops and paying rent to Municipality. There was no privity of contract between plaintiffs and respondent No.2.
After going through the records and evidence, trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.82 decreed the suit of plaintiff. It was observed that respondent No.1 was stranger and he was having no right to own the shop in question.
Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed appeal and vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.1985, first Appellate Court accepted the appeal and findings returned by the trial Court were set aside. It was observed that respondent No.1 was one of the occupants of the land used by Trust to construct the new shops under its scheme, there was no illegality on the part of the Trust to allot one shop to respondent No.1.
Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal.
The appellants framed the following substantial question of law for consideration of this Court:-
“Whether respondent No.1 was justifying in allotting the shop to respondent No.2?
Kadian Savita 2013.08.07 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2105 of 1985
3
Admittedly, after the demolition, the shops have been constructed by the Improvement Trust/ Municipality and there was no agreement between the tenants and the municipality or the trust that the tenants would be given the shops and that too of the same area which was already under their occupation. Thus, the appellants or any of the tenants could not possibly claim exactly the same area as it was with them before the demolition of the katcha shops. The appellants have no right to claim more area than the presently occupied by them. In the absence of any right established, no fault could be found with the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. It may further be noticed that respondent No.1 was also one of the occupants of the land to new shops under the scheme and thus, there was no illegality on the part of the Trust to allot one shop to respondent No.1.
In view thereof, thus no substantial question of law as raised, arises in this appeal.
Dismissed.
August 05, 2013 savita
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Kadian Savita 2013.08.07 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent No.1 was justified in allotting the shop to respondent No.2?
Whether the appellants have an exclusive right to claim the same area or shop previously occupied?
Harish Chand Duggal and others
Waryam Singh and others
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
