PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Partap Singh (since deceased) and his brother Rajpal, who is stated to be serving in the Army, sold 7 kanals 17 marlas agriculture land situated in village Siwah to M/s. Novelty Spinning Mills Private Limited, G.T. Road, Panipat through a registered sale deed dated 9.2.1989 (Annexure P-1). Respondent No. 2, The District Town Planner, Painpat, thereafter lodged the present F.I.R. against the petitioners on 22.1.1991 (Annexure P-2) alleging that by selling the land in question, the petitioners had infringed the provisions of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as they had sub-divided their land for selling the same for residential and commercial purposes without obtaining a licence from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. The police after due verification filed a challan against the petitioners alleging that only one transaction had taken place i.e. the one made on 9.2.1989. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court by way of the present petition for quashing of the F.I.R. and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that no provision of law had been violated as only one plot had been sold and there was no allegation that any other plot had been carved out or proposed to be put up for sale.

(2.) THIS petition was admitted for hearing on 2.2.1994 and the further proceedings before the trial Court were ordered to be stayed. It is admitted position that the said stay order continues to operate as of today.

(3.) MR . Malik, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that from a bare reading of Section 2 of the Act, it would be clear that a colony could be said to have been set up if more than one plot had been carved out and as there was no allegation whatsoever that any plot beyond one was sold to M/s. Novelty Spinning Mills Private Limited, the question of setting up of a colony did not arise with the result that no case was made out against the petitioners.