IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)

NO. 19485 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Randhir Singh and Ors..........................................................PETITIONER

VERSUS

Municipal Council & ORS..................................................RESPONDENTS

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.

I, ………………….. S/o ………….. R/o………… aged about ……years do

hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS :

1. I am the authorised representative of Respondent No. … in the above-

captioned matter and I am well conversant with the facts of the case and

therefore, competent to swear the present affidavit.

2. I have gone through the contents of the Special Leave Petition and have

understood the contents thereof and in reply, I am filling the instant

counter affidavit. I submit that the contents of this affidavit are true to the

best of my knowledge and record.

3. That the present Special Leave Petition does not deserve any

consideration from this Hon’ble Court and is liable to be dismissed at the

threshold itself as it does not raise any question of law and much less any

substantial question of law.

4. That at the very outset, the answering respondent humbly submits that

save and except the contents specifically admitted by the answering

respondent, the rest of the contents of the petition by the petitioner is

denied.

5. That at the outset it is submitted that the shops in question were

constructed by Respondent No.1 i.e. Municipal Council Sonepat now

called Municipal Corporation Soenpat. However, later on, a dispute arose

regarding the ownership of the land in question between Respondent

No.1 and Respondent No.2. Due to the dispute, the land was demarcated.

After the demarcation it was found that the land on which shops were

constructed was owned by Respondent No.2. The respondent no.2 thus

asked the answering respondent to hand over the possession of the vacant

land. It was also found that the land on which shops were constructed was

reserved for the purpose of green belt and parking. The answering

respondent therefore asked the tenants to vacate the shops as the shops

were constructed unauthorisedly on the land owned by Respondent No.2.

6. That meanwhile a writ petition in the nature of PIL i.e. CWP 11673 of

2011 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Chandigarh seeking direction to the official respondents to remove

unauthorized construction raised by the Municipal Council Sonepat and

others. In the said Writ Petition reply was filed by the Municipal Council

Sonepat virtually admitting that the construction of shops over the land in

disputes was raised under a mistaken belief that the land belongs to the
 Municipal Council Sonepat. It was further stated that on 27.10.2009 an

anti-encroachment drive by the district administration was held and some

unauthorizedly constructed shops were demolished. However, some of

the tenants had filed a civil suit challenging the notices for

eviction/demolition issued by Respondent No.1 and got an interim

injunction in their favour. Reply on similar lines was also filed by

Respondent No.2 in the said Writ petition

7. That the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 01.08.2012 disposed of the

said writ petition issuing directions to the deputy commissioner to remove

existing unauthorised construction qua which there is no interim order

passed by the competent civil court. The Hon’ble High Court further

directed the answering respondent in case, any civil suit is pending to

place on the record of the said suit order passed by the Hon’ble High

Court and also the written statements filed in the said writ petition so that

an appropriate order can be passed by the Civil Court. A copy of the order

dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP 11673 of

2011 Is annexed herewith as annexure R-1/1.

8. It is further pertinent to mention here that the present petitioners also filed

an application before the Hon’ble High Court for the review of the order

dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP 11673 of

2011. The said review petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court

vide order dated 29.11.2013. A copy of the review application filed by

the
 petitioners along with the order dated 29.11.2013 dismissing the said

review petitions are annexed herewith as R-1/2 and R1/3.

9. That thereafter the suit for permanent injunctions was tried and the Ld.

Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.09.2014 dismissed the

said civil suit. The stand of the petitioners before the trial court that

Respondent No.2 is not the owner of the land was disbelied by the Ld.

Trial Court. The Learned Trial Court further held that illegal possession

would remain illegal either it is made by an individual person or

govt/semi govt body. That judgement and decree dated 26.09.2014 were

further challenged by the present petitioner by filing an Appeal. The said

appeal was also dismissed by the Ld. District Judge Sonepat vide

judgement and decree dated 14.10.2016. The Learned Lower Appellate

Court upheld the finding of the Learned Trial Court. The Learned Lower

Appellate Court also found that as per the demarcation report the shops

were constructed on the green belt The construction of shops over the

land in question was thus found illegal and unauthorized construction.

The appeal filed by the petitioners was thus dismissed by the Learned

Lower Appellate Court.

10.That the petitioners further challenged the judgements and decrees dated

26.09.2014 and 14.10.2016 by filling RSA No. 5557 of 2016. The

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 19.07.2023

dismissed the RSA which order has been impugned in the SLP by the

petitioners. The Hon’ble High Court also noted that the area in question is
crucial for
maintaining green belt and parking space and therefore the construction

raised by the Municipal Council was illegal. That the answering

respondent contends and submits herein that the Hon’ble High Court has

rightly considered the facts and evidence available on record while

dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court has

rightly concluded that the land underneath the shops was never under the

ownership of the Municipal Council and the land is crucial for green belt

and parking space. Thus the present Special Leave Petition does not

deserve any consideration from this Hon’ble Court and is liable to be

dismissed at the threshold itself as it does not raise any question of law

much less any substantial question of law.

REPLY ON MERITS :

1. Contents of Para 1 is a matter of Record to the extent of the filling of

the present petition. However, it is submitted that the order passed by

the Hon’ble High Court is completely as per the applicable laws and

there is no infirmity in the order passed.

REPLY TO THE QUESTION OF LAW

1. Contents of the para (i) are wrong and denied. All the courts below

have considered the policy dated 11.10.1983 and found that it cannot

be said that the Municipal Council has become the owner of the Land

underneath the shops in question by virtue of the said policy.

2. Contents of para (ii) to (vii) are wrong and denied in entirety.

However as a matter of fact question of law (iv) as proposed by the

petitioner is a question of fact which has been found against the

petitioners by all the courts below.

REPLY TO DECELERATION UNDER RULE 3(2) AND RULE 5:

1. Contents of the Para are a matter of record.

REPLY ON GROUNDS :

A. Contents of Ground (A) are correct to the extent that the suit for

protecting the possession by the petitioner is to be dismissed holding

the constructions raised over the land meant for green area and

parking is unauthorized construction. Moreover, the Hon’ble High

Court vide order dated 01.08.2012 passed in CWP 11673 of 2011 has

already issued directions to Deputy Commissioner Sonepat to remove

the unauthorized construction over the land in dispute. The Hon’ble

High Court had further directed the answering respondent to produce a

copy
 of its order and the Written Statements filed in the Writ Petitions on

the record of the civil suit which had been filed by certain occupants

of the shops.

B. Contents of Ground B are wrong and denied in entirety.

C. Contents of Ground B are wrong and denied and in reply thereto it is

submitted that the answering respondent had never received any rent

since 2009 when the area was demarcated and had asked all the

tenants to vacate the shops in question.

D. Contents of Ground D are wrong and denied. In reply thereto it is

submitted that admittedly the land in dispute is an evacuee property

and thus the answering i.e. Municipal Council Sonepat (Now

Municipal Corporation) was not the owner of the land in dispute.

E. Contents of Ground E to Ground S are wrong and denied in entirety.

The grounds raised by the are baseless, misconceived and liable to be

rejected. The judgements mentioned by the appellant do not relate to

the circumstances of this case and have no relevance with the

Impugned order passed by the Hon’ble High Court.

REPLY TO GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF :

Contents of Para 6 are misconceived baseless, wrong and denied and

submissions in the Para hereinabove are reiterated and reaffirmed.

 REPLY TO MAIN PRAYER AND INTERIM PRAYER

In response to prayer clauses mentioned as Para 7 and Para 8 in the

Present SLP it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner does not

deserve any relief from this Hon’ble Court and the Present SLP

deserves to be dismissed outright.

Nothing has been pleaded herein which has not been pleaded before

the court below.

Place:

Date:

Deponent

VERIFICATION :

Verified at New Delhi on this …… day of August 2024 that the contents of the

Present Counter Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief and as per the record available with the respondent company and no

material facts have been concealed before this Hon’ble Court.

Place: Deponent

Date: