RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) Reserved on:28.04.2026 Pronounced on: 12.05.2026 Uploaded on: 12.05.2026 Ram Chander ...Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, NIT Faridabad ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

   
Present: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, with Mr. M. S. Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate, & Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate, Mr. Mohit Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ****

   
 , J. (Oral)
                                               !
"    #$          %  &'  (#' )#$  
*

*#$   + &, %+ -'(#'   ' +# +    #                     ,   -       (#  .    '  (#'           )  )     #    .'  ' '  /'/'   /  $'0 '1 #'%(#2)  $
3' ANIL KUMAR   # $) '    '# 2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 2    .+$    )#$  4  5 06  7     !' 4+  

"!' $
"'  $+ .    2 )     $
"3'   #        .' )+' )             +)     )  #)   #     + 1 # ' ' (# .     )          2 )  +          )    $
"3    )     $
" 2 ) +               8
8      9  +5           )  .          $ .$  : $'      /                   $ 8 6   )      ')    )                )     )                $           #     #   $   $     

"!  !' 4  #  2 )        # $)     $
3   '     ' 5    ;     . '  )   #$  ANIL KUMAR1  2     (# .      2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 3
" 
8 : $'      "   <$  7    '
38,   = <7 >-)'# )   '      8! <7 ) +  5 ')+'  )     ;    2 )      :  #        ;  $ +    +   (# .         <7              +   $     $
" 2 )       +  / )   # #$     $
"3 ? ' )$ @   )  )   +   /  )  (  '  $")) A
 B       $C ?  B       C?% 8 B      C?% @ B     #    C?% ! B+   $ C?% * B  #$)       C?% ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 4 3 B                      8! C?% "   !  '     ++  '    '            +    
*

*   $           $ * +       
*

*   #$       +  &  ,   %+ -'  (#'             #         %   &' (#')       +       !
" +#$         %  &'(#'    #  #$    3    +$    '                #           !
" #$       %  &'(#'+       
*

*#$      '#        '                       +  #$       +  2 )  #$                $#+         +# +    ')) )    $  ' )+'   ) + ) #$         2 ) #          "   <$ 7    '
38'))       # )     2 )   #$   ANIL KUMAR        )      2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 5  1 '1  2  '+       5 )   ;    .'    D.%
  <)+'      1   '  1    2  '  )  + . #$   #      2 )              .   %B
    '  1   2  ') $+  
" 
8D.%
'        ++   ' )             +   D.%
' )# + %B
  '1  2  '( 2 )       .   1 '1  2  ' )               ' '            ++   #$      2 )     '  '     # $)   $
3       . +    #: $'  $
" '      $+     .    2       '   . B @ # '7 ')   $    $
"3'   . '   $
" '    ) # +                )    2  )           $B @ #   /   .    $'    #           "   <7 '
38')++     ')) )   :  2 )     # +    $ #             $
8     $
8' ANIL KUMAR   #$        '            '   2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 6              )  $      +       $+ )     #$         $'$)            #$          "  '                       '      $        +  + #  ' $+    #$      2 )         #  5 '))           ;    '      )#           #  +           #     
" 
8D.%
'#$1 ' 1  2  '  $ #   5 )     ;              '  '        ) $          "   <7 '
38 5 )  #    $       $'$)   # +    E        '     +)  ' $' ) #           )    :  <)+'           )+.# #      ( ' +  +   1  '1  2  '+        5  )   ;    .    : $' ANIL KUMAR     
" 
8D.%
   ' 2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 7      "   <$ 7    ) 5 '))            " <$ 7        )#  #    )     '  $#$   #  +  ) )  .      #  ' : #   #   $ $ )      (    <7 $  )#  # #    "#     '  $#$  ' # +  ) )  .      #  ': #     #      +  
 Coming to the facts of the present case, though the appellant had averred before the learned lower Court that he had submitted the site plan at the time of raising construction of six shops in the year 1987, yet in support of the said contention, neither any application nor the alleged site plan was produced before the learned trial Court. Mere assertion on the part of the appellant that he had submitted the site plan of the six shops before the respondent-authority and that the same was refused on the ground that the land in question fell outside the Lal Dora of village Ballabhgarh, cannot be accepted by this Court in the absence of any cogent evidence. Further, though much hue and cry was raised before this Court regarding the non-examination of Bhim Singh, Building Inspector, who had prepared the report dated 18.02.1993, this Court is of the considered view that non-examination of the said official was not fatal to the case of the respondent-authority. The said report was duly proved on record by DW-1 Prem Raj, another Building Inspector of the respondent-authority, and when the report was exhibited as ANIL KUMAREx.D-1, no finger was raised at the time of its exhibition. Moreover, Bhim 2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 8 Singh, Building Inspector, had no manner of enmity or ill-will against Kirpa Ram so as to falsely prepare a report alleging that unauthorized construction was being raised at the spot. Further, as regards the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the shops had been constructed prior to the year 1993 and not in the year 1993, this Court is of the considered view that, had the appellant actually constructed the shops prior thereto, he could very well have stepped into the witness box before the learned trial Court to substantiate his stand. However, quite strangely, the appellant himself did not appear before the learned trial Court and instead chose to examine his attorney as a witness. It has also nowhere been brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the suit the appellant was suffering from any illness or disability which prevented him from appearing before the learned trial Court to depose in support of his case. ('  #   #   # $
8 ' ' $ # D.!D.3) #   #   D.
D.'$ $#  #   #    $     +         .           #$1  2 1  $
8 Thus, none of the aforesaid documents establishes that the appellant had raised the construction in the year 1989. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it was incumbent upon the appellant to establish before the learned Courts below that he was the owner of the shops in question, however, no title deed whatsoever was produced on record in support of such claim. Moreover, the report Ex.D-1 prepared by Bhim Singh, Building Inspector, cannot be ignored lightly, ANIL KUMARparticularly when the said official, in discharge of his official duties, had 2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1530-1998 (O&M) 9 visited the spot and found that Kirpa Ram was present there and was raising unauthorized construction. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the plea that no notice was personally served upon him, especially when he has miserably failed to establish himself as the owner of the shops in question by not producing any title deed in support thereof. Consequently, the respondent-authority was fully justified and well within its jurisdiction to issue notices under Sections 208 and 209 of the HMA to Kirpa Ram, who was present at the site on the date when the construction activity was being carried out.

 2 +) '   $+$     !
"#$    %  &'  (#'        )      #$       $' +   
     ' $'   7$
' * ,7 26%D 260<0 DB-
 &E%0D Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.12 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document