Punjab Municipal Act | Municipality Alleging Unauthorised Construction Must Prove Violation By Cogent Evidence, Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Sec 49 Notice: P&H High Court

"The appellant, having alleged that the respondents had subsequently raised unauthorised construction, was required to substantiate the allegation by cogent evidence." Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that a municipal body seeking to demolish property carries the burden to substantiate allegations of unauthorized construction through cogent evidence, and a suit for permanent injunction against imminent demolition is maintainable without serving prior statutory notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

Dismissing a regular second appeal preferred by the civic authority, Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal ruled that demolition notices issued under Sections 195 and 195-A of the Act cannot be sustained when the civic body fails to produce the relevant Town Planning Scheme or distinguish between pre-existing structures and alleged new constructions.

The respondents instituted a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Municipal Council, Bathinda, from demolishing any portion of their residential house constructed over 812 square yards at Mehan Patti pursuant to notices issued under Sections 195 and 195-A of the Punjab Municipal Act. While the respondents asserted ownership and claimed that the construction was pre-existing with only minor repairs carried out, the civic authority resisted the suit on the ground that a room and verandah had been raised in violation of the Town Planning Scheme. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the property owners, and the decree was concurrently affirmed by the First Appellate Court, prompting the civic body to approach the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the municipal council had discharged its burden of proving that the respondents raised unauthorized construction in violation of the Town Planning Scheme so as to justify demolition under Sections 195 and 195-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The court was also called upon to determine whether the suit for permanent injunction was maintainable without serving a prior statutory notice under Section 49 of the Act.

Civic Body Bears Affirmative Burden To Prove Unauthorised Construction

Examining the concurrent findings of the courts below, Justice Grewal observed that the municipal authority had fundamentally failed to substantiate the existence of unauthorized construction with reliable evidence. The court noted that the municipal council had primarily rested its case on an inspection report that lacked critical factual particulars.

The High Court highlighted that the inspection report neither identified the specific portions of the building that were newly constructed nor determined the age of the structure. In contrast, the property owners had produced registered sale deeds containing clear recitals of pre-existing construction, corroborated by documentary evidence such as water and telephone utility records.

"The appellant primarily relied upon the inspection report (Ex.D1), which neither identified the portions of the construction that were old or newly raised nor specified the age of the respective portions."

Inspection Report Lacks Credibility In Absence Of Town Planning Scheme

The court closely analyzed the deposition of the municipal council’s sole witness, DW-1, noting that his admissions completely dismantled the defense set up by the civic authority. The witness admitted during cross-examination that he had neither carried the Town Planning Scheme during the inspection nor referenced it in his report.

Justice Grewal pointed out that no other municipal official or independent locality resident accompanied the inspecting official, nor did the report delineate the specific dimensions mentioned in the demolition notices. The court observed that these material omissions cast serious doubts over the bona fides of the civic action.

"These admissions cast serious doubt on the reliability of the inspection report and the allegation that the respondents had raised new construction in violation of the Town Planning Scheme."

Failure To Place Town Planning Scheme On Record Is Fatal To Civic Body's Case

The High Court held that the municipal authority’s failure to produce the Town Planning Scheme into evidence was fatal to its claim, as the court could not ascertain which building bylaws or zoning regulations were violated. The bench underscored that once property owners produce title deeds showing pre-existing construction, the burden squarely shifts to the municipal authority to establish the illegal deviation.

The court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be disturbed in second appeal in the absence of perversity, material misreading of evidence, or non-consideration of material records.

"It is also significant that the appellant failed to produce the Town Planning Scheme on record and, consequently, could not establish the specific provisions alleged to have been violated by the respondents."

Injunction Against Demolition Covered By Exception Under Section 49 Punjab Municipal Act

Addressing the municipal council's objection regarding the non-service of statutory notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the High Court upheld the findings of the courts below that the suit was fully maintainable. The court held that a suit seeking an urgent preventive injunction against illegal demolition falls squarely within the recognized exceptions to the requirement of prior statutory notice.

The court also dismissed the municipal council's contention regarding alleged concealment of an earlier civil suit, noting that the civic body failed to identify any specific document or demonstrate how the alleged non-disclosure prejudiced the adjudication.

"The learned Trial Court held that the suit seeking a permanent injunction against demolition was maintainable under the applicable exception to the requirement of prior notice, and the learned First Appellate Court affirmed the said finding."

No Substantial Questions Of Law Required In Second Appeals Governed By Punjab Courts Act

Concluding the judgment, the High Court clarified the procedural landscape governing second appeals in the jurisdiction, noting that formulation of substantial questions of law is not mandatory in appeals governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

Relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including Pankajakshi v. Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh (2019) 17 SCC 71, and Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, the court affirmed that the second appellate jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court remains circumscribed by the special provisions of the Punjab Courts Act rather than Section 100 CPC. Finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent decrees protecting the property from demolition, the court dismissed the appeal.

Dismissing the regular second appeal, the High Court held that municipal bodies cannot invoke demolition powers under Sections 195 and 195-A of the Punjab Municipal Act on vague inspection reports without proving the breach of a specific town planning scheme. The ruling reinforces that citizens facing imminent municipal demolition can directly maintain an injunction suit without prior statutory notice under Section 49 of the Act.

Date of Decision: 15-10-2026