B. SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a resident of the State of Punjab, has come up with a prayer to quash Licence No. 33 of 1996 granted under the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Rules made thereunder to Respondent No. 11-M/s Amar Nath Aggarwal Investments Private Limited - for setting up plotted/Group Housing Colony at Village Bhagwanpur, Islam Nagar and Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula (Haryana), described in the Schedule attached to the Licence issued by the State Government/Respondent No. 9, as contained in Annexure P-5. 1.1 His further prayer is to command Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 to discharge their statutory obligations by taking appropriate steps to construct Ghaggar Dam, proposed and planned in the Periphery Control Plan of Chandigarh, as contained in Annexures P-1 to P-3.

(2.) IN the written statement (filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Haryana, Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Periphery) and District Town Planner, Panchkula-Respondent Nos. 7, 9 and 10), it has been stated, inter alia, as follows :- The Haryana Government had declared the portion of the periphery area falling in the State of Haryana as controlled area vide Notification dated March 21, 1972 (Annexure R/1). As per Section 4 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery Control) Act, 1952 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a plan showing the area declared as controlled area was prepared and displayed (copy appended as Annexure R/2). With the passage of time, the controlled area became a very potential area for urban development as in addition to the city of Chandigarh, other Centre/State sponsored projects like Headquarters of Western Command at Chandi Mandir, Hindustan Machine Tools, T.B.R.L. and setting up of new satellite town Panchkula came up. To regulate the use of land in order to prevent ill- planned and haphazard urbanisation in or around towns in the State of Haryana, the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 was enacted. Under the provisions of that Act, Respondent No. 11 submitted an application seeking Licence for setting up a residential colony. A report from the Executive Engineer, Water Services Division, Ambala, was obtained. It was felt that there is need for further planned urbanisation in the absence of which unauthorised colonisation is bound to take place and, accordingly, a decision was taken at the level of the Government to grant Licence for the purpose. Simultaneously permission under Section 11 of the Act was also granted. The site for the proposed colony falls within the proposed reservoir area of Ghaggar Dam and, thus, clarifications were sought from the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana Irrigation, who reported that the colony falls within the reservior area of the proposed Ghaggar Dam Project and hence is not suitable for developing residential colony. Thereafter Respondent No. 9 decided to withdraw the permission granted under Section 11 of the Act and the Licence granted under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 by reviewing his order under Section 21 of the said Act. Prior sanction of the Government was obtained and a show cause notice was issued to Respondent No. 11. Respondent No. 11 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 1998 against the notice issued for cancellation of the Licence and the permission. Subsequently, the issue regarding construction of the proposed Dam was examined by the Irrigation Department and then the Haryana Government decided that Ghaggar Dam is not in the interest of the State of Haryana. Thus, there is no need to pursue it. Directions have been given to examine viability of raising low cost smaller dams for protection of floods and providing drinking water to Panchkula. In that view of the matter the show cause notice issued to Respondent No. 11 was withdrawn. Accordingly, the development plan of the periphery-controlled area was amended and a new plan was made showing the location of the colony in the unbanizable zone of the periphery-controlled area (copy appended as R/4). Hence the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit.

(3.) MR . Surya Kant, learned Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 7 to 10, contended that the argument of the Petitioner is based on mis-reading of the provisions of the Act; the saving clause of the Act recognises the power of the Government or any other authority to acquire land or to impose restrictions upon the land use besides development of land comprised in the controlled area; the decision of the Government to abandon the construction of Ghaggar Dam was taken in the best interest of the State of Haryana for the reasons disclosed in the affidavit, and if at all there is any dispute in this regard, it being an inter-State dispute, cannot be raised before this Court in view of the express bar stated in Article 131 of the Constitution of India and, thus, the Writ Petition be dismissed.