No Injunction Against Demolition of Unauthorized Construction Without Proof of Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Municipal Action Under Haryana Municipal Act

Case Name: Ram Chander v. Municipal Corporation, NIT Faridabad

Date of Judgment: 12 May 2026

Citation: RSA-1530-1998

Bench: Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a person seeking protection against demolition of allegedly unauthorized construction must establish lawful ownership and possession through cogent evidence. The Court ruled that mere assertions regarding prior construction, unsupported by title documents or reliable evidence, cannot defeat municipal action initiated under Sections 208 and 209 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. The Court further held that notices issued to the person found carrying out unauthorized construction at the site were legally valid even if the appellant later claimed ownership.

Summary: The appellant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Faridabad Complex Administration restraining demolition of certain constructions comprising six shops, a hall, tin shed, hand-pump room and open space situated at Tirkha Colony, Ballabhgarh. The appellant claimed ownership and possession over the property and asserted that portions of the land had been purchased through a registered sale deed in 1985. It was further claimed that the boundary wall and tin shed had been constructed in 1979, six shops were constructed in 1987, and an additional second-storey construction was raised in 1989.

According to the appellant, municipal authorities issued demolition notices in 1993 in the name of one Kirpa Ram and threatened demolition of the suit property. The appellant therefore approached the Civil Court seeking protection against demolition.

The respondent-authority contested the suit by asserting that the construction was unauthorized and situated in an unauthorized colony in violation of municipal laws. The authorities relied upon an inspection report dated 18.02.1993 prepared by Building Inspector Bhim Singh, who allegedly found Kirpa Ram raising unauthorized construction at the site. On the basis of the report, notices under Sections 208, 209 and 235 of the Haryana Municipal Act were issued.

Although the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree. The Regular Second Appeal before the High Court challenged the reversal order on the grounds that no valid notice had been served upon the actual owner and that the inspection report had not been proved through the authoring officer Bhim Singh himself.

Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal dismissed the appeal and held that the appellant had failed to produce cogent title documents establishing ownership over the shops in dispute. The Court noted that despite claiming ownership, the appellant never produced any title deed relating specifically to the shops in question. Even the alleged site plan submitted in 1987 was never produced before the Court.

The High Court further rejected the argument that non-examination of Building Inspector Bhim Singh was fatal to the respondent’s case. The Court held that the inspection report Ex.D-1 had been duly proved through another Building Inspector and no objection had been raised at the time of its exhibition. The Court also observed that there was no allegation of mala fides or personal animosity against the inspecting officer which would justify discarding the report.

Another important factor noticed by the Court was that the appellant himself never stepped into the witness box and instead examined only his attorney. The Court held that if the appellant genuinely wished to prove that the construction existed prior to 1993, he ought to have personally appeared and substantiated his claim. Electricity bills and building material bills relied upon by the appellant were held insufficient to establish existence of the construction prior to the inspection conducted in 1993.

The Court ultimately concluded that the municipal authorities had acted within jurisdiction in issuing notices under Sections 208 and 209 of the Haryana Municipal Act to the person found carrying out unauthorized construction at the site. Since the appellant failed to establish lawful ownership or valid prior construction, no interference with the municipal action was warranted.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the judgment of the First Appellate Court and declined to interfere with the municipal authority’s action against the allegedly unauthorized construction.