STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SADDA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order made by D.K. Mahajan, J., allowing Civil Writ No. 399 of 1959 and quashing the notice issued by the Estate Officer under Section 12(2) of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 .

(2.) In the petition which was filed by Sadda Ram, Teja Singh, Ujagar Singh and Jagat Singh, it was stated that Khasra No. 17 was owned by them and their residential houses were standing on it, in some of which they were residing. In the year 1955 a notice was issued under the aforesaid Act for demolition of those houses on the ground that they had been constructed in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Estate Officer lodged a complaint, against the aforesaid persons under Section 12(1) of the Act, They were tried by the Magistrate, 1st Class, Kharar, who convicted them. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge set aside their convictions. The learned Sessions Judge had held that there was no evidence showing that the Deputy Commissioner had made any declaration under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, and further there was nothing to show that any restrictions had been imposed in the area in question on the construction or erection of any buildings. It is mentioned in the judgment that the Public Prosecutor found it impossible to support the conviction of Sadda Ram. His conviction was consequently set aside. The learned Single Judge considered that unless a competent Court had finally decided that no breach of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act had been committed, the Deputy Commissioner or the Estate Officer was bound under Section 12(2) by that decision and he could not issue any notice under the aforesaid provision. The present appeal has been brough by the State and the Estate Officer challenging that decision.

(3.) The Act was enacted to control and regulate the periphery of the New Capital of the State of Punjab. By Section 3 the State was empowered to declare the whole or any part of the area to which the Act extended to be controlled area by means of notification. Section 5 provides that no person shall erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation etc. in the controlled area save in accordance with the plans and restrictions and with the previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner in writing. Sec-tion 6 prescribes the procedure for making an application for permission and for grant of such permission by the Deputy Commissioner. Section 11 says that no land within the controlled area, except with the permission of the State Government, be used for purposes other than those for which it was used on the date of the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. Section 12 may be reproduced in its entirety: