STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RULDA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Sub-Divisional, Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, dated 13.2.1991, whereby complaint filed by Sh. Dharam Chand, J.E., against the present respondent, under section 11(i) read with sections 3(1) and 8(1) of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975 (here-in-after referred to as the Act), was dismissed and Rulda Singh accused-respondent was ordered to be discharged.

(2.) IN brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that according to the allegations in the complaint, the respondent is owner of land bearing Khasra No. 54/18/1, 18/2, 23/1, 23/2, 23/4, 24/1, 67/3/1, 3/5, 4/1 min, Had Bast No. 193 situated at Village Balachaur District Hoshiarpur. The respondent divided the aforesaid land into more than five plots for the purpose of transfer for residential, commercial, industrial or any other building purpose and has set up a colony as defined in section 2(c) of the said Act. It was further pleaded that the respondent sold 10 plots to different persons for the purpose of constructing buildings. The details of transfer affected by the respondent after coming into force of the Act are as under :-

(3.) APART from legal infirmity referred to above Sh. Kulbushan Dutt W1 and Jaspal Singh Sarpanch have not supported the prosecution case that the respondent had converted his land into a colony. Apart from that, it is not the case of the complainant either that the land of the respondent is situated in any urban or sub-urban or contiguous area or that the sales in respect thereof in any manner relates to urbanisation or concern sales residential plots in the urban or sub-urban contiguous areas. The land of the respondent is situated in remote rural area away from urban or sub-urban area so far notified by the State. Thus, in the absence of any specific allegations in the complaint that the land sold in the instant case is meant for urbanisation or relate, to meet the demand for residential plots in any urban sub-urban or contiguous area, no violation of the act is made out. Thus the stringent provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. I find support in my view from Single Bench authority of this Court reported as Hardam Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1993)85 PLR 657 and State of Punjab v. Gurmukh Singh, (Vol X CVII (1990-1) PLR 398. Thus, no useful purpose would be served if the case is remanded for the examination of the complainant.