AHUJA VAISHNO DHABA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties are agreed that common questions of fact and law arise for determination in 25 writ petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 1996, 2252, 2261, 2266, 2290, 2294, 2298, 2305, 2332, 2334, 2348, 2349, 2357, 2358, 2463, 3050, 3334, 4724, 4477, 4635, 4653, 4654, 4666 and 4723 of 2003. At the option of the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguments have been advanced on the basis of pleadings in CWP No. 2294 of 2003. Accordingly, in the instant order, facts have been taken from the pleadings in CWP No. 2294 of 2003.

(2.) THE proprietor of the petitioner-Ahuja Vaishno Dhaba No. 1, Krishna Lal, purchased land comprised in Killa No. 172//9/1(2-17), 10/1 (1-8) in the revenue estate of village Murthal, Tehsil Sonepat, adjoining the G.T. road, through a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1986. It is the case of the petitioner that he constructed a building thereon for using it as a "dhaba" in 1986 itself. It is further the case of the petitioner that the building constructed over the land in question is exclusively owned by the petitioner and as such no part of the building can be described as an encroachment on Government land.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted a detailed written response dated 16.7.2002 to the show cause notice dated 8.7.2002. A perusal of the written response reveals that the petitioner alleged that no valid notification had been issued under Section 4 of Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, declaring the land owned by the petitioner (fully described above) as "controlled area". It was, therefore, asserted that the construction made by the petitioner over the land owned by him, could not be considered to have been effected, in violation of the provisions of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. In order to assail the validity of the notification under section 4 of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, the primary contention advanced (in the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner) was that the notification issued under section 4 dated 9.10.1986 having not been published in at least two newspapers printed in a language other than English (as per the mandate of Section 4(2) of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963), could not be treated as valid. It was also contended that the construction of "dhaba" by the petitioner on the land owned by his was beyond 30 meters of the G.T. road and as such the construction effected by the petitioner was not in violation of any of the provisions of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. It was also emphatically submitted that there was several Government buildings like Food Corporation of India godowns, Electricity Grid Stations, Sports School at Rai, as well as a number of other Government offices situated in close proximity to the petitioner's "dhaba", but no action had been taken in respect of the said buildings. In continuation of the aforesaid plea, it was alleged that two factories, namely, Gyatri Motor station and another service station are also located in the vicinity of the "dhaba", where the owners had effected construction in the same manner as the petitioner, but no action had been taken against them. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was alleged that the petitioner was being unfairly discriminated against. Last of all, in the reply to the show-cause notice, it was asserted that the petitioner was willing to deposit conversion charges for compounding the alleged violations committed by the petitioner, in terms of the provisions of Section 7 of the Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963.