GURDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that Prabhu Dyal son of Kalu Ram, was the owner of agricultural land in question, which was included in the limits of municipality (for brevity "the MC") of Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of The Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the MC Act"), by means of notifications dated 24.11.1983 (Annexure P3) & 23.10.1984 (Annexure P4). In pursuance of letter dated 29.2.1985 (Annexure P5), the Gram Panchayat had already handed over all the records to the Executive Officer of the MC. Petitioner Gurdip Singh had purchased the agricultural land in litigation from Prabhu Dyal, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 4.7.1995. The mutation, bearing No.367 (Annexure P2) was duly sanctioned in his favour in this respect.

(2.) Although the land in litigation already stood vested in the MC, but still, the District Town Planner (respondent No.2) made a complaint to the police on 14.7.1998, which, in substance, is as under:-

(3.) That being the position, a criminal case was stated to have been registered against the petitioner, by means of FIR, bearing No.535 dated 13.8.1998 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 6 and 7 of The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Controlled Areas Act"), in the manner described hereinabove.