PARKASH DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Firm are the agents of Esso Standard Oil Company and it has set up an oil filling station in Rohtak on Delhi-Rohtak-Hissar road. It is alleged that the petitioner-Firm purchased some land in the year 1955, obtained permission of the authorities concerned for setting up a petrol pump thereon, got the plan of the petrol pump sanctioned by the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, and completed the buildings sometime in the year 1960. On September 5, 1968, the petitioner-Firm received a notice from the Director of Schedule Road and Controlled Restriction (DHS Road) in which it was stated that they had made encroachments on Government land. They were asked to remove the alleged encroachments within 24 hours, failing which it would be presumed that they had nothing to say in that connection. It is alleged and not denied that on September 6, 1968, at about 9 A.M. i.e. much earlier than the expiry of the period of the said notice served upon the petitioners, subordinate officials of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 visited the petrol pump and started demolishing a part of the building. The petitioner - Firm sent a telegram to respondent No. 3 in which it was mentioned that the encroachment notice had been delivered to the petitioners at 1700 hours. They also mentioned that all constructions were made by them after getting the sanction of the concerned authorities and that they should be given an opportunity to produce title sanctions before ordering any adverse action against them. This telegram went unheeded and the petitioner-Firm filed the instant petition and the Motion Bench was pleased to grant an ad interim stay order at the time of the admission of the petition.

(2.) The return in this case has been filed by Shri N.S. Neena, Sub-Divisional Engineer, on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioners had been permitted to set up a petrol pump only but that the petitioners used this area for the construction of shops also.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. A reading of the provisions of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 shows that it has no retrospective operation. Section 4 of the said Act entitles the Government to issue a notification for declaring a controlled area and Section 6 of the said Act places an embargo on erection or re-erection of buildings within the controlled area. In short, there must be a prior declaration of declared area before anybody can be prevented from constructing a building in that area. If, as alleged by the petitioner-Firm, they had completed the buildings in the year 1960 when the said Act had not come into force, then there was nothing to prevent them from doing so. As at present advised, I am of the view that the provisions of this Act apply to fresh building activities only, and that the buildings which had been constructed prior to the coming into force of this Act cannot be demolished by taking recourse to the provisions of this Act.