Six-Month Limitation Cannot Legalise Encroachment on Land Reserved as Green Park: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Primacy of Public Interest

“Efflux of Time Cannot Validate Construction Raised in Derogation of a Statutory Town Planning Scheme”, In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of town planning schemes and protection of public green spaces, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the six-month limitation under Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 does not legalise construction raised on land reserved for public purposes under a statutory scheme.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, thereby permitting the Municipal Committee to proceed with demolition of unauthorized construction raised on land reserved as a green park under Town Planning Scheme No. 13.

The Court categorically observed that “the six-month period contemplated under Section 195 cannot be treated as sacrosanct or conclusive so as to legitimise an act which is fundamentally illegal and strikes at the very scheme of planned development.”

The appellant, Harbans Singh, claimed to have purchased 10 marlas of land out of Khasra No. 800 in Mohalla Premgarh, Hoshiarpur, through a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1988. He raised construction comprising a room and boundary wall in early 1989 without obtaining prior sanction from the Municipal Committee as mandated under Section 189 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

Although the appellant secured water and sewerage connections, a demolition notice dated 28.02.1990 was issued under Sections 195, 195-A, 172 and subsequently Section 220 of the Act, alleging unauthorized construction.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant, holding that:

“The notice was issued beyond six months of completion of construction and was therefore time-barred under Section 195,” and that the grant of water and sewerage connections implied condonation.

However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that the land formed part of a green park reserved under Town Planning Scheme No. 13, sanctioned by the President of India in 1987 (Ex. D6), and therefore no construction was permissible.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court in Regular Second Appeal.

Scope of Second Appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act

At the outset, Justice Aggarwal clarified that second appeals in Punjab and Haryana are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not Section 100 CPC.

Relying upon Pankajakshi v. Chandrika and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, the Court reiterated that “no question of law is required to be framed” in such appeals.

Applicability of Six-Month Limitation under Section 195

The central question was whether the Municipal Committee’s demolition notice was barred by limitation under Section 195 of the Act.

Section 195 provides that notice for demolition of unauthorized construction must be issued within six months from completion of the building.

However, the Court drew a crucial distinction between:

“constructions on land otherwise capable of lawful private use where the infraction is primarily procedural” and
“constructions on land statutorily reserved for public purposes like a green park under a notified town planning scheme.”

The Court held that while the six-month limitation may apply in cases of procedural violations such as absence of sanctioned plans, it does not validate constructions raised in violation of statutory reservation under Section 192.

Quoting from Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized:

“The provision presupposes a lawful underlying right to construct; where no such right exists due to statutory reservation for public use, efflux of time does not validate the construction.”

The High Court further observed:

“If constructions in violation of town planning reservations were permitted to gain legitimacy merely by efflux of time or administrative delay, it would undermine the statutory scheme under Sections 189-195 and defeat the purpose of reserving land for public open spaces.”

Construction on Land Reserved as Green Park: Fundamental Illegality

The Court found that:

“The suit land is undisputedly covered by Town Planning Scheme No. 13… which reserves the area as a green park/public open space.”

The appellant admitted that no site plan was ever submitted or sanctioned under Section 189.

Thus, the construction was not merely procedurally irregular but fundamentally illegal and contrary to the statutory scheme.

The Court declared:

“The disputed construction cannot be protected by court of law; as it was raised upon the land reserved for park in clear derogation of the notified town-planning scheme.”

Public interest in preserving designated green spaces, the Court noted, overrides individual claims.

Effect of Water and Sewerage Connections: No Implied Regularisation

Rejecting the Trial Court’s reasoning, the High Court held:

“The grant of municipal services such as water or sewerage connections is merely an administrative facilitation… and cannot be construed as an approval, regularisation, or condonation of an otherwise illegal construction.”

Regularisation must flow from statutory authority, not from acquiescence or administrative convenience.

Injunction Against Public Authority: Stricter Equitable Test

Referring to Mohan Lal v. Mohan Singh, the Court reiterated that when injunction is sought against public authorities in respect of public property, courts must apply a stricter test.

In addition to prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, courts must consider public interest as a paramount factor.

Applying this test, the Court held:

“The balance of convenience unmistakably tilts in favour of the Municipal Committee… Above all, public interest mandates preservation of designated green spaces.”

The appellant, being merely a co-sharer in an undivided khasra and having raised construction without sanction, had no enforceable right warranting equitable protection.

Prospective Effect of Yogendra Pal Judgment

The Court also addressed the impact of Yogendra Pal v. Municipality, Bhatinda, wherein Section 192 was declared unconstitutional to the extent it allowed inclusion of land without compensation.

The High Court clarified that the declaration applied prospectively from 15.07.1994, whereas the present notice and scheme predated that judgment. Therefore, the scheme remained valid for the present case.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court held: “The limitation prescribed under Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 does not operate to legalise constructions raised on land reserved for public purposes under a statutory town-planning scheme.”

The judgment and decree dated 17.04.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, was upheld, and the Municipal Committee was granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

This ruling serves as a firm judicial reminder that statutory town planning reservations cannot be defeated by delay, administrative oversight, or private assertions of ownership. The protection of public parks and green spaces, the Court reaffirmed, is a matter of collective right and overriding public interest.

Date of Decision: 19/02/2026