Smt. Anita Aggarwal vs Karanbir Singh on 15 January, 2009

Civil Revision No.2842 of 2008                             -1-

                                ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                          Civil Revision No.2842 of 2008
                          Date of decision : 15.1.2009

Smt. Anita Aggarwal                                        .....Petitioner

                   Versus

Karanbir Singh                                             ...Respondent

                                ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

Present:     None for the parties.

S. D. ANAND, J.

The plaintiff-respondent is in possession of 6 Kanals 9 Marlas

area of land comprised in Khewat Khasra No.30/4 situated in Nangali,

Tehsil and District Amritsar. The petitioners purchased certain land

adjacent to the land owned by the plaintiffs-respondent, vide registered

sale deed dated 7.10.2003. The petitioners have started raising

construction over on that land for establishment of a factory/unit/plant for

manufacturing medicines and other medical equipments. The respondent

requested them to desist from doing so as it would pollute the area in the

vicinity but the petitioners did not agree, thereby impelling the plaintiff-

respondent to file a civil suit for permanent injunction. In that civil suit, he

also filed a plea for grant of interim injunction. That plea was dismissed by

the learned Trial Court. However, in appeal, that order was reversed and

defendants/petitioners were restrained from raising the construction of

building to be used as factory/unit/plant for the manufacturing of medicines.

The defendants-petitioners aforementioned are in appeal against that
Civil Revision No.2842 of 2008 -2-

****

order.

It is apparent from the record that the purchase made by the

petitioners was of agricultural land. It is also apparent from the record itself

that the plot to be constructed would include Canteen block, office block,

goods hall and also a unit for manufacturing of the medicines. There is not

even an averment that any permission for the change of land use had been

obtained by the petitioners. It is, obviously, a case in which the land meant

for agricultural operation is proposed to be used for establishment of a

factory for manufacturing of medicines etc. It is further apparent from the

record that there is a residential locality in the vicinity. All these facts were

noticed by the learned Ist Appellate Court which recorded that though the

petitioners had not pleaded the purposes of the impugned construction, the

character thereof was apparent from the site plan filed therewith.

The Court has to decide upon the existence or otherwise of a

prima-facie case in favour petitioning party, besides taking into

consideration the aspect of balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

All these factors taken conjunctively would be determinative of the

consideration of a restraint plea. In the present case, defendants-

petitioners have made purchase of agricultural land. They have not even

averred that any permission for change of land use had been obtained.

The purpose of impugned construction was not indicated. Learned

Appellate court drew a valid inference from the material obtaining on the

file that the construction would be of a factory for the manufacturing of

medicines. That inference is in consonance with the pleadings of the

plaintiff-respondent. The allowance of impugned construction would cause

irreparable injury to the plaintiff-respondent and those living in the vicinity

on account of medicines manufacturing related pollution.
Civil Revision No.2842 of 2008 -3-

****

I do not find that there is any illegality and perversity in the

manner of exercise of judicial discretion by the learned Ist Appellate court.

The petition shall, accordingly, stand dismissed in default and also

on merits. However, in view of the nature of the controversy it would be

appropriate if the suit under reference is disposed of by the learned Trial

Court on priority, preferably within a period of six months from the next

date of hearing.

The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the

concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court.

Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the

case is disposed of within aforementioned period.

January 15, 2009                                      (S. D. ANAND)
Pka                                                       JUDGE

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No