RAJNI SCHRAWAT Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are members of one family. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Rajni Sehrawat is the widow of Shiv Chand Scehrawat and petitioner No. 2 is his son, Sahib Ram Sehrawat. The other three petitioners are sons and wife of Sahib Ram Sehrawat. The petitioners owned 25 acres of land in village Sukhrali, tehsil and district Gurgaon. Their land and other land situated in that village was acquired by different notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners after the acquisition of aforesaid land remained owners of only 23 Kanals 4 Marlas of land comprising Khasra Nos. 6, 7, and 15 of Killa No. 59. The aforesaid land fell within the controlled area notified under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) as applicable to Haryana. The petitioners moved requisite application under the Act before the Director, Town and Country Planning, respondent No. 2, for permission to change the existing use of the land by raising construction of residential houses and community centre (Barat Ghar). The application was rejected on May 14, 1990 (copy annexure P/3) Against this order the petitioners filed an appeal under section 8(2) of the Act (copy annexure P/4). Respondent No. 1. the Commissioner, partly allowed the appeal. He permitted the petitioners to raise the community centre (Barat Ghar) on a part of the land. He further laid down a condition that after construction, the building would be transferred to the Gram Panchayat or any other social institution/body. He rejected the other claim of the petitioners for raising residential construction on the land in dispute. This order was passed on October 17, 1990 (Copy annexure P/5). The petitioners have challenged these two orders passed by the respondents in this writ petition inter alia on the grounds that this while allowing permission to raise construction on the land covered under the notified area, no conditions under the Act or Rules framed thereunder could be imposed for transferring ownership of the construction to be raised in favour of the Gram Panchayat or any other social institution/body. Secondly, the ground taken was that since the application for permission to raise residential house was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules, on fulfilling of such conditions, the authorities under the Act were required to allow the permission. Of Course, some conditions could be imposed by the authorities relating to development of plot and expenditure to be met thereon.

(2.) The stand of the respondents in the written statement filed by respondent No. 2, is that for valid reasons application filed by the petitioners for raising residential houses on the land in dispute was rejected. Such reasons being that the land was under the process of acquisition; that the proposed site could not be adjusted/accommodated in the envisaged lay-out plan of the area in which the same was situated. At this stage, it may further be stated that copy of the lay-out plan was attached indicating that the entire land around the land in dispute was developed by the colonizers. It is further asserted in the written statement that even permission for raising the community centre (Barat Gbar) was wrongly granted.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records produced on the file.