IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2668-1997 Municipal Commi%ee, Gurgaon . . . . Appellant Vs. Smt. Kasturi Devi . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 24.02.2026 Pronounced on: 27.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate and Mr. Nitesh Jhanjhria, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defen- dant–Municipal Commi)ee, Gurugram assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit ins+tuted by the plain+ff Smt. Kasturi Devi seeking decree of perpetual injunc+on in respect of the prop- erty in dispute was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 15.04.1991, and the appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 27.09.1996. 2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion, the par- +es shall be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court. The record of the trial Court available on DMS has been carefully perused. 3. Subject Maer of Suit : The controversy relates to a plot measur- ing 812 square yards, forming part of Khasra No. 252/2 (3169/252 min) situated NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 within the municipal limits known as 6-C, Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram (hereina>er referred to as the suit property), which has been depicted by le)ers ABCD in red colour in the site plan appended with the plaint. 4.1 Plainff’s Case : As per the case of the plain+ff, she is the owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of a family se)lement, whereby the said plot was transferred to her by her husband Shri Ram Chander. It was pleaded that Shri Ram Chander had earlier affirmed the plain+ff’s rights in Civil Suit No. 237 of 13.3.84, decided on 30.03.1984. Shri Ram Chander himself had become co-owner of the larger property through a sale deed dated 16.07.1963, and in a mutual arrangement amongst co-sharers, the share comprising Khasra No. 252/2 had fallen to his share. 4.2 It was further pleaded that the plain+ff intended to raise construc- +on over the suit property and accordingly submi)ed an applica+on dated 01.05.1984 to the defendant-Commi)ee seeking sanc+on of the site plan along with the requisite fee and plan. As no order was passed by the defendant within a period of two months, the plain+ff claimed that in terms of Sec+on 205(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, the building plan stood deemed to have been sanc- +oned. According to the plain+ff, in order to cover up its omission, the defen- dant therea>er passed various proceedings and ul+mately rejected the applica- +on for construc+on vide order dated 26.03.1985. Aggrieved thereof, the plain- +ff preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, who re- manded the ma)er with direc+ons to decide the same a>er proper measure- ment of the plot. Measurement of the suit plot along with the adjoining plot of Bal Kishan was therea>er carried out. 4.3 The plain+ff also relied upon an earlier decision of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.05.1982 as well as the report of the Town and Country Planning Officer, which allegedly supported the plain+ff’s claim. It was further alleged that despite these developments, the defendant intended to encroach NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 upon the suit property by fencing it with barbed wires and by installing sign- boards trea+ng it as municipal land. 4.4 With the above averments, the plain+ff sought a decree declaring her ownership and possession over the suit property along with a decree of per- manent injunc+on restraining the defendant from interfering with her posses- sion or obstruc+ng construc+on in accordance with the submi)ed site plan. 5.1 Defendant’s Stand : The defendant-Municipal Commi)ee con- tested the suit by filing a wri)en statement raising preliminary objec+ons re- garding non-joinder of necessary par+es, absence of no+ce under Sec+on 80 CPC, and maintainability of the suit etc. 5.2 On merits, it was asserted that the suit property vested in the Mu- nicipal Commi)ee and that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata under Sec+on 11 CPC. The defendant further pleaded that the plot formed part of an open space reserved under Town Planning Scheme No. 6-C, and that all open spaces, roads and public u+li+es under the scheme stood vested in the Municipal Commi)ee. The decree relied upon by the plain+ff was alleged to be fic++ous. While admiGng that the plain+ff had applied for sanc+on of construc- +on and deposited the requisite fee, it was asserted that no valid building plan had been submi)ed. 5.3 The defendant also disputed the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and pleaded that in an earlier li+ga+on +tled “Tara Wan vs. Mu- nicipal Commiee, Gurugram”, involving the plain+ff’s husband Ram Chander, demarca+on was conducted pursuant to orders of the District Judge, Gurugram, wherein the suit property had been declared to be an open space. It was further pleaded that the appeal and objec+ons filed by Ram Chander were dismissed by the District Judge on 28.05.1976, and therefore the plain+ff, being his successor, was bound by the said adjudica+on. Prayer was accordingly made for dismissal of the suit. Page 3 of 10 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 6. In the replica+on, the plain+ff controverted the stand of the de- fendant and pleaded that no valid Town Planning Scheme No. 6-C ever existed. Alterna+vely, it was pleaded that even if such a scheme had been framed, the same was never implemented, as essen+al internal development works such as roads, sewerage and other civic ameni+es were not completed within the statu- tory period of five years, rendering the scheme unenforceable and ineffec+ve. 7. Upon comple+on of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues. Par+es led both oral as well as documentary evidence in sup- port of their respec+ve claims. 8. Findings of the Trial Court : A>er apprecia+ng the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the plain+ff had success- fully established her ownership over the suit property. However, the trial Court simultaneously observed that the plot in ques+on formed part of the Town Planning Scheme and was shown as an open space/park therein, and therefore, vested in the Municipal Commi)ee. The suit was nevertheless held to be main- tainable and the plain+ff was found to have locus standi to ins+tute the pro- ceedings. The trial Court further held that the judgment in the earlier li+ga+on +tled ‘Tara Wan vs. Municipal Commiee, Gurugram’ did not operate as res ju- dicata against the plain+ff. Significantly, the trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the Town Planning Scheme had not been implemented by the Mu- nicipal Commi)ee within the prescribed statutory period and had consequently lapsed. In view of the cumula+ve effect of these findings, the suit of the plain+ff was decreed vide judgment & decree dated 15.04.1991. 9. Findings of the Appellate Court : Aggrieved thereof, the defen- dant–Municipal Commi)ee preferred an appeal, whereas the plain+ff filed cross-objec+ons challenging certain adverse findings recorded by the trial Court. 10. Before the learned First Appellate Court, the plain+ff primarily as- sailed the finding of the trial Court holding that the suit property formed part of the Town Planning Scheme and also challenged the legality of the order dated NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 26.03.1985, whereby the Municipal Commi)ee had refused sanc+on for raising construc+on over the suit property. 11.1 Upon re-apprecia+on of the en+re evidence, the learned First Ap- pellate Court affirmed the finding that the plain+ff was owner in possession of the suit property, placing reliance upon the judgment & decree dated 30.03.1984 (Ex.P16 and Ex.P17). The Appellate Court observed that the defen- dant had failed to specifically rebut the plain+ff’s plea of ownership and posses- sion. No sugges+on dispu+ng the plain+ff’s +tle or possession was put either to PW-8 Ram Chander, the a)orney of the plain+ff, or to any other witness. Even DW-1, examined by the defendant, did not depose anything to dispute the plain+ff’s +tle or possession. The Appellate Court relied upon the sale deed (Ex.PW8/1), jamabandi (Ex.P15), muta+on (Ex.P19), the decree & judgment (Ex.P16 and Ex.P17), as well as tes+monies of PW-5 (Patwari) and PW-8 (Ram Chander), to uphold the plain+ff’s ownership and possession. 11.2 The finding of the trial Court that the suit property formed part of the Town Planning Scheme was, however, reversed. The Appellate Court held that the defendant failed to establish the exact loca+on of the suit property so as to demonstrate that it fell within the Town Planning Scheme. It was further observed that even if the property was assumed to be situated within the scheme area, there was no cogent evidence to show that it had been reserved for a park or street. Addi+onally, the scheme itself was found to have lapsed due to non-implementa+on within the statutory period. 11.3 While examining documents Ex.D1, Ex.D2, Ex.D3 and Ex.D7 relied upon by the defendant, the Appellate Court concluded that these documents neither established the boundaries of Khasra No. 252/2 nor proved that the ad- joining roads or alleged park formed part of the said khasra. On the contrary, re- liance was placed upon le)er dated 16.11.1984 (Ex.P3) issued by the Adminis- trator, Municipal Commi)ee, Gurugram seeking clarifica+on from the Depart- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 ment of Town and Country Planning, and the reply dated 22.11.1984 (Ex.P4), which clarified that the suit property did not fall within any reserved area. 11.4 The Appellate Court also relied upon the report of the Local Com- missioner (DRO, Gurugram) dated 25.06.1985 (Ex.PW4/1), prepared in the pres- ence of municipal and revenue officials, which recorded that the site plan pre- pared for the Town Planning Scheme was defec+ve, as it indicated scale without measurements. Reference was also made to a similar dispute concerning the ad- joining plot of Balkishan, wherein the Local Commissioner’s report (Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/4) had concluded that Balkishan’s plot did not fall within the area re- served for street. The said report had been accepted by the Deputy Commis- sioner vide order dated 31.05.1982 (Ex.P10) and had a)ained finality. 11.5 Further reliance was placed upon the report of the Administrator, Municipal Commi)ee dated 23.05.1985 (Ex.P11), recording that several con- struc+ons had been raised in the area without sanc+on and even in open spa- ces. The Appellate Court observed that since the plain+ff’s plot adjoined Bal Kis- han’s plot, which had already been found not to fall within any reserved area, a different yards+ck could not be adopted in the plain+ff’s case. 11.6 The Appellate Court also held that the suit property did not vest in the Municipal Commi)ee and affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the suit was not barred by res judicata. It was no+ced that in the earlier li+ga+on +tled ‘Tara Wan vs. Municipal Commiee’, Ram Chander (plain+ff’s husband) had merely been a proforma respondent and no relief had been claimed against him. The compromise in that case was effected only between Tara Wan+ and the Municipal Commi)ee; and Ram Chander was neither a signatory nor had his rights been adjudicated. Consequently, dismissal of his appeal as infructuous could not operate as res judicata. 11.7 The Appellate Court further held the order dated 26.03.1985 re- jec+ng sanc+on to be illegal. It also affirmed the finding that the Town Planning Scheme had not been implemented within five years and had therefore lapsed, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 relying upon Sec+on 203(6) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. In this regard, the Appellate Court no+ced the tes+mony of PW-8 that no development facili- +es had been provided even up to 1981-82 though the scheme dated back to 1967. The defendant failed to effec+vely cross-examine the witness on this as- pect. PW-10, Surinder Singh Rao, Execu+ve Officer of the Municipal Commi)ee, expressed inability to state, whether facili+es had been provided within five years, while DW-1, Gopal Singh, Junior Engineer, also failed to confirm imple- menta+on of the scheme. 11.8 On the cumula+ve apprecia+on of the material on record, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant and al- lowed the cross-objec+ons of the plain+ff, thereby affirming the decree in favour of the plain+ff. 12. Submissions & Consideraon by this Court : Assailing the concur- rent findings recorded by the Courts below, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant–Municipal Commi)ee contends that both the Courts below commi)ed a patent error in holding that the suit property did not form part of the Town Planning Scheme. It is further contended that Ram Chander, husband of the plain+ff, was a party to the earlier li+ga+on +tled ‘Tara Wan vs. Munici- pal Commiee’ and that the appeal preferred by him therein having been dis- missed, the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. On these premises, prayer has been made for seGng aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and for dismissal of the plain+ff’s suit. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned judgments are based upon a proper apprecia+on of oral and docu- mentary evidence and record concurrent findings of fact, which do not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdic+on under Sec+on 100 CPC. 14. This Court has heard learned counsel for the par+es and carefully perused the record. Page 7 of 10 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 15. At the outset, it deserves to be no+ced that the finding of the Courts below that the plain+ff is owner in possession of the suit property is a concurrent finding of fact, based upon documentary evidence including sale deed, revenue record, muta+on entries and the earlier decree in favour of the plain+ff. The said finding has not been seriously disputed before this Court. Even otherwise, no perversity or misreading of evidence has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference in second appeal. 16. The controversy raised by the appellant essen+ally revolves around two aspects:
Whether the suit property formed part of the Town Planning Scheme and vested in the Municipal Commi)ee; and
Whether the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the earlier li+ga+on involving Ram Chander. 17. Both these issues were elaborately considered by the learned First Appellate Court, which being the final Court on facts, re-appreciated the en+re evidence and returned well-reasoned findings. 18. Re: Town Planning Scheme and Vesng : The burden to establish that the suit property formed part of the Town Planning Scheme and stood re- served for a public purpose was squarely upon the defendant–Municipal Com- mi)ee. The Appellate Court rightly no+ced that the documents relied upon by the defendant, namely the no+fica+on of sanc+on, ownership statement and an incomplete site plan, failed to clearly demarcate the boundaries of Khasra No. 252/2 or to demonstrate that the suit property specifically fell within an area re- served for a park or street. 19. On the other hand, the plain+ff produced cogent evidence includ- ing clarifica+on obtained from the District Town Planner indica+ng that the suit property did not fall within any reserved area; the report of the Local Commis- sioner highligh+ng defects in the Town Planning site plan and inability to demar- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 cate the plot with reference to the scheme; and documentary evidence arising from a similar dispute concerning the adjoining plot of Bal Kishan, which had a)ained finality and indicated non-adherence to the scheme. 20. The Appellate Court also took note of evidence demonstra+ng widespread devia+ons from the Town Planning Scheme and existence of con- struc+ons over areas allegedly reserved for public u+li+es. In such circum- stances, the failure of the Municipal Commi)ee to establish precise demarca- +on of the suit property within the scheme was rightly held to be fatal to its plea of ves+ng. 21. Addi+onally, both the Courts below recorded a categorical finding that the Town Planning Scheme had not been implemented within the statutory period and had therefore lapsed. The said finding is based on oral tes+mony of municipal officials themselves, who expressed inability to prove implementa+on of development works within the prescribed period. Such a finding is purely fac- tual and cannot be re-opened in second appeal in the absence of any perversity. 22. It is well se)led that mere sanc+on of a planning scheme does not automa+cally divest private ownership unless the property is clearly reserved and the scheme is duly implemented in accordance with law. The Municipal Commi)ee having failed to discharge this burden, the plea of ves+ng was rightly rejected. 23. Re: Plea of Res Judicata : The Appellate Court has also rightly re- pelled the plea of res judicata. A perusal of the earlier li+ga+on reveals that Ram Chander was only a proforma defendant, against whom no substan+ve relief had been claimed. The compromise in the said proceedings was effected exclu- sively between Tara Wan+ and the Municipal Commi)ee, and Ram Chander was neither a signatory to the compromise nor were his rights adjudicated therein. The dismissal of his appeal occurred only because the main suit itself was with- drawn, rendering the appeal as infructuous. Page 9 of 10 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2668-1997 24. For an applica+on of res judicata, it is essen+al that the issue must have been directly and substan+ally in issue between the same par+es and must have been finally adjudicated. These ingredients are conspicuously absent in the present case. Consequently, the earlier proceedings could not operate as res ju- dicata against the plain+ff, who claims independent rights through Ram Chan- der. 25. Scope of Interference in Second Appeal : It is trite that the jurisdic- +on of this Court under Sec+on 100 CPC is confined to substan+al ques+ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact, based upon apprecia+on of evidence, cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or re- sul+ng from misapplica+on of law. 26. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any such perversity or substan+al ques+on of law arising from the impugned judgments. The findings recorded by the Courts below are well reasoned, supported by evidence, and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. 27. Conclusion : In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below do not call for interference. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal stands dismissed, leaving the par+es to bear their own costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 27.02.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 27.02.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document