SUKHRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of a memo dated 22.08.2006 finalising the policy of change of land use and regularisation of unauthorized construction/colonies, fixation of conversion charges etc. in terms whereof the status of the land use has been changed from residential to commercial on Model Town Road and Mahavir Marg, Jalandhar.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing in Lajpat Nagar area of Jalandhar for the last 30-35 years which is surrounded by Model Town road on one side and Mahavir Marg on the other side. The plot which was allotted to the petitioner was only for residential purposes. However, unauthorized construction is stated to have cropped up in the area where commercial use has been made and this is stated to be given sanctity of law by the impugned memo dated 22.08.2006 recommending the conversion of land use on fourteen roads. The petitioner submits that in terms of Sec. 262(2)(g) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the PMC Act, 1976), sanction of a building or work can be refused if it is in contravention of any scheme sanctioned under Sec. 275 of the PMC Act, 1976. Sec. 275 of the PMC Act, 1976 mandates the Corporation, if so required by the Government, to draw up a building scheme for the built area and a town planning scheme for an un-built area. The commercial construction, thus, is stated to be contrary to the said mandate as the change of land use has not been part of the building scheme for the area and, thus, there cannot be any regularization.

(3.) The Municipal Corporation/respondent No. 3 has sought to defend its action in issuing the memo dated 22.08.2006. It has been pointed out that a development scheme can always be modified as per Sec. 275(3) of the PMC Act, 1976. A reference has also been made to the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the PTI Act, 1922) by learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation/respondent No. 3 to contend that under Sec. 42, the Improvement Trust is required to sanction every scheme, but under Sec. 43, a scheme can be altered by the Improvement Trust with the prior approval of the Government between its sanction and its execution. Under Sec. 55, the streets vest in the Municipality. In these circumstances, it is stated that the Improvement Trust had vested the streets in the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar.