RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 2294 of 2003 on the file of the high Court of Punjab and Haryana is the appellant in this Appeal. The Appeal challenges the decision of the High Court dismissing the writ petition. Civil Writ Petition No. 2294 of 2003 was heard along with a number of other writ petitions filed by persons similarly situated and was treated as the main case. Before the High Court, it was the common case of the parties in the various writ petitions that the facts and the position in law in all the cases were typical of the facts and law arising in Civil Writ Petition (CWP) No. 2294 of 2003 and that the decision in C. W. P. No. 2294 of 2003 will govern all the cases and hence may be treated as the main case. The High Court acceded to this request and answered the main points in CWP No. 2294 of 2003. Finding against the case of the writ petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed. Applying the decision, the other writ petitions were also dismissed. Appeals were filed against those decisions also. The appeals were heard together. The present appeal arising from the main judgment was treated as the main appeal. The questions arising for decision being common, the decision in this appeal would govern the various cases heard along with it, in addition to the peculiar facts situation prevailing in some of them.

(2.) The appellant herein purchased an extent of land comprising Killa No. 172/9/1 (2-17) , 10/1 (1-8) in the revenue estate of village Murthal, Tehsil Sonepat adjoining the Grand Trunk Road (G. T. Road) as per sale deed dated 30-10-1986. The land was agricultural land. The appellant claimed that he constructed what he calls a 'dhaba' in the land in the same year. He has not given the details regarding the construction or the time of construction. He did not seek any permission for putting the land to a use different from agriculture, or for putting up the construction. On 8-7-2002, the District Town Planner, Sonepat, exercising the powers of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, issued a notice to the appellant under Section 12 (2) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'development Act') calling upon the appellant to stop further construction and to appear in his office and to show cause why he should not be ordered to restore the land to its original state, which was in the controlled area of Sonepat in terms of the Development Act. The said notice brought to the notice of the appellant that he was putting up the construction in a controlled area under the Development act, that he had laid out an access to the Grant Trunk Road (G. T. Road) in contravention of Section 6 of the Development Act; that he had also contravened Sections 8 and 10 of the Development Act; and that he had used the land in contravention of Section 7 (1) of the Development Act. The notice called upon the appellant to stop further construction and to remove the unauthorized construction and restore the land to its original condition. The appellant filed a reply dated 16-7-2002, to the show cause notice claiming that the Dhaba' had been constructed outside 30 meters from the road reserve and even if a part of it fell within 30 meters, the dispute was pending before the tribunal created under the Development Act. His substantive defence was that there was no notice of publication of the Development plan of controlled area till that date, in the official gazette, and he could not be found guilty of violation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Development Act. The area had not been declared as controlled area under the Development Act. The appellant was ready and willing to pay the conversion charges, if any, under Section 7 of the Development Act. He also raised a contention that he was being treated with discrimination, since there were other constructions belonging to the government and others in the locality, presumably violating the provisions of the Development Act and no steps were taken against those constructions. The authority, by order dated 23-7-2002, rejected the contentions of the appellant and found that the provisions of the Development act had been violated by the appellant. The Director, Town and Country planner Department, therefore, called upon the appellant to remove his unauthorized construction and restore the land to its original condition.

(3.) The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the Development Act, 1963. The appeal was heard along with various other appeals. The tribunal, on a consideration of the relevant aspects, came to the conclusion that the Director, Town and Country Planning Department was justified in passing the order since there had been a clear violation of the provisions of the Development Act, 1963 by the appellant and others. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant and the connected appeals were dismissed. The appellant and the others challenged the orders of the Tribunal before the High Court in various writ petitions. The case of the appellant, as indicated earlier, was treated as the main writ petition and the High Court, on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Development Act, 1963 in the light of the steps taken under the Development Act, 1963 and the facts obtaining in the case, and the arguments raised, dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the tribunal. It also dismissed the connected writ petitions filed by others. This appeal, challenges the main decision rendered by the. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the connected appeals challenge the decisions in the respective writ petitions filed by the appellants therein.