TELU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Telu Ram and other petitioners owned land in village Patti Rajputana, Panipat out of which they sold one bigha of land to Ashok Kumar and one Bigha of land to Kaushalaya Devi vide registered sale deeds dated 15.6.1987. Total area of land sold to them came to 2016 square yards, equivalent 1693 square metres. Field investigator Kashmiri Lal made a report to Police regarding the transfer of this land and on the basis of that report FIR No. 564 dated 25.12.1990 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Panipat against the petitioners for violation of Section 7 punishable under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 ('the Act' for short). It was alleged that the petitioners could not sub divide the land to plots for residential/industrial commercial purposes without obtaining licence from the Director Town and Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh under Section 3 or permission under Section 9 of the Act.

(2.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the above mentioned First Information Report and order dated 30.3.1992 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Panipat Annexure P-1. It was averred that sale deeds were executed on 15.6.1987 while challan was presented in Court on 11.6.1991 i. e after the expiry of period of limitation and the court should not have taken cognizance of the offence if any. It was further pleaded that the petitioners had sold only two plots of land the total area of which was 1693 square metres and the transactions were not covered within the definition of "colony" given in Section 2(c) of the Act. The sale did not attract the provisions of the Act.

(3.) In the return filed by the respondent it was contended that the commission of the offence by the petitioner came to the knowledge of the respondent only on 29.7.1989. So the limitation commenced from that date and not from the date of commission of offence. It was further pleaded that any division of land under the Act in violation of the provisions, without permission from the competent authority was punishable under the provisions of the Act and the proceedings launched against the petitioners were maintainable.