ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI JAMNA DASS, PANIPAT Vs. DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order issued by the Director, Town and Country Planning, rejecting an application made by the petitioner for change of land use for setting up a retail outlet as Kisan Sewa Kendra (KSK) at the Village Sondhapur. District Panipat. The three objections, which have been taken, are as follows:

(2.) Of them, as regards the first objection, the petitioner's contention is that, the property belonged to the father and he had taken it on 99 years lease. It is contended that there is no requirement for such a transfer to be entered in revenue records. The learned counsel for the State would point out to Section 34 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 as applicable to Haryana, that requires any person acquiring, by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a landowner, assignee of land revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the patwari of the estate. Evidently, the petitioner was under the belief that it was not necessary if he is a close relative. If the authorities would require the proof of mutation, the petitioner could secure the same, for, I would understand Section 34 to be merely a facilitative provision and not a legal mandate to pursue for a person, who has acquired such a right. The Land Revenue Act is essentially to enable the State to know the person, who will be responsible for paying the revenue to the State and a transferee of an interest in immovable property is required to obtain mutation to benefit himself by securing an entry in an official record proclaiming such right as well as enable to State to collect revenue. I will not take this to be a fundamental defect to deny the permission sought for.

(3.) The violation complained of with reference to the transfer of property without the sanction is required under Section 7(i) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act of 1975, in my view, cannot apply, since the interdict as set out in the Section applies only to a transfer or agreement to transfer in any manner, plots in a ''colony'' among other grounds mentioned therein. The Section reads as under: