PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DASHMESH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 4328 and 4345 of 2002, as not only common questions of facts and law are involved in these two Appeals but both have been directed against the same judgment and decree dated 30.4.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar and affirmed by the learned District Judge, Ropar vide his judgment and decree dated 26.7.2002. Needless to say that these Appeals have originated out of Civil Suit No. 65 of 2001 filed by Dasmesh Educational Society (Regd.).

(2.) Facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 4328 of 2002.

(3.) The material facts emanating the cause of action as mentioned in the plaint are that the Dasmesh Educational Society (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1) instituted the Civil Suit No. 65 of 2001 against (i) the State of Punjab through its Secretary, Housing, (ii) Punjab Housing Urban Development Board through its Vice Chairman, (iii) Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, (iv) Punjab Urban Development Authority through its General Manager (Regulatory) and (v) Collector, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants), for a declaration "that the Application dated 21.8.1998 moved by the plaintiff with the defendants seeking permission for setting up a Forest Hill Country Club Resort at village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar over the agricultural land as detailed in Annexure-A (which may be read as part of the plaint) is deemed to have been sanctioned having not been rejected in writing within the statutory period of 90 days of its submission as required under the provisions of the Punjab New Capital Periphery Control Act, 1952. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought "restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering in any manner in the works undertaken by the plaintiff over the land (detailed in Annexure-A) and from demolishing the constructions/developments already made over the suit land forcibly or in any other manner." According to Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff, it is registered society: vide its application dated August 21, 1998 submitted with the Appellants, it sought permission for setting up a "Forest Hill Country Club Resort" within the area of village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, the project was with the aim and object of promoting tourism, recreational activities and for fulfilling the cultural needs of the people and public at large without disturbing the natural features rather enhancing the same; the project of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 was a non-polluting industry which is enhancing the flora and fauna of the area, besides providing employment to a number of persons from the area and would also generate further employment; the area over which the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 wanted to develop the club is covered under the provisions of the Punjab New Capital Periphery Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 3952 Act); pursuant to the application dated 21.8.1998 submitted by it, the Appellants vide their letter dated September 10, 1998 called upon the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 to submit the site plan/location plan where the country club resort was proposed to be set up; Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated September 14, 1998 complied with these requirements; however, sufficient time elapsed thereafter but the Appellants neither sanctioned nor rejected the application submitted by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 despite a reminder on January 1, 1999 followed by another reminder dated March 10, 1999 and thereafter yet another reminder dated September 8, 1999 sent through its Estate Officer; since the application of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 was not specifically rejected by the Appellants, it presumed that the same was sanctioned without any reservation and started development works at the site incurring the huge expenditure; even the President of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 submitted a representation to the then Finance Minister, Punjab on March 2, 2000 but to no avail even though sanctions for change of land use were given by the Appellants to (a) Indus Valey resort; (b) Fun City; (c) Dr. R.K.Bansal, Lakhnaur; (d) National pesticides, Badmajra and very recently to (e) Guru Ram Das Society; thereafter a letter dated 5.5.2000 was received by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 from one of the Appellants to attend a meeting convened for the purpose of considering its application; the meeting was attended by the President, Senior Vice President, Project Manager and Estate Officer of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 apart from the Chief Administrator, General Manager (Regulatory), Additional Chief Administrator, Senior Architect, Senior Town Planner and Chief Engineer of the Appellant No. 1 wherein it was principally agreed to recommend to Appellant No. 1 to accord sanction to the project; however, having received no formal communication, another representation on July 19, 2000 was made by the Chairman-cum-managing Director of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 with the Minister-in-charge but after certain queries having been made in a meeting held on September 1, 2000 in the office of Chief Administrator, P.U.D.A., which were duly replied/clarified, no further step was taken; the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 made yet another representation to the Appellant on February 6, 2001 but notwithstanding such representation, the original application dated August 21, 1998 (Ex.P3) was neither rejected nor expressly accepted according permission for setting up a Forest Hill Country Club Resort, though such a decision was required to be taken by the Appellants within a period of 90 days under the provisions of the Act and the afore-mentioned period having expired, the application of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 is deemed to have been accepted without imposition of any conditions thereby entitling it to seek a declaration that the application submitted by it seeking permission is deemed to have been sanctioned; even otherwise, the area over which the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 intends to develop and has partly developed by the Country Club, has already been considered by the concerned department for leisure activities including setting up of an amusement park, golf club, etc.; policy of this effect has also been cleared by the Chief Minister of Punjab on December 7, 1998 which also included the setting up of a country club; the department sought information regarding constructions which existed upto 31.12.1998 for their regularisation and permission has been accorded to various societies and persons to set up their ventures in the area and thus the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 could not have been singled out in this regard in an arbitrary manner; infact, the government itself had invited applications for setting up of ventures in the shape of Golf club-cum-Country Club of PGS standard; since the application submitted by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. l was not declined by the Appellants in written or otherwise as required under the provisions of Act, the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 after a period of 90 days started development of the site and has already spent about 2.75 crores of rupees till December, 2001 by executing the works like (i) survey and fencing of the entire land, (ii) boring of three deep tube-wells, (iii) carrying out necessary earth works, (iv) installation of telephone and electricity connection, (v) boundary wall, (vi) tourist huts, (vii) offices for staff, (viii) gazebo and lawns for parties, (ix) kitchen and stage for functions, (x) lakes and other landscaping features, (xi) road networks, (xii) electrical and telecommunications layouts, (xiii) water tank and laying of water supply lines, (xiv) tented accommodation within the area, etc for which the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 engaged world famous Archietects from Singapore; the country club is functional and the activities are in progress for the last about 3 years and various types of facilities like boating; trekking, hiking etc. are being carried out; that now the defendants (Appellants) by taking advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff-Respondent No. l does not have a written sanction in its hands, have started threatening to demolish the constructions and works already ongoing in the area without any right or authority; once the Appellants did not decline the sanction in writing within the period of 90 days from the date of submission of the application, they cannot take the law into their hands and interfere with the on-going works as the sanction is deemed to have been granted and thus the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 is within its right to carry out and implement its plan; the Appellants have been requested many a time to admit the claim of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 but to no avail and if the appellants succeed in their illegal designs, Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money and if obstruction is caused in the on going development works, it will cause wastage of money running into crores of rupees.