HIMAT RAI NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15.7.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that State of Haryana through District Town Planner, Karnal, exercising powers of Director, Town and Country Planing Haryana, filed complaint against the present petitioner under Section 12(1)(b) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegations that the land-in-dispute as described in the complaint situated within the revenue limits of village Patti Ansare tehsil and district Panipat which was being used for agriculture purposes, was declared as controlled area under the Act vide State Government notification dated 10th of September, 1971 published on 21st of September, 1971. It was further alleged that the petitioner in contravention with the provision of Section 7(1) of the Act changed the user of land by raising construction thereon without the permission of Director Town and Country Planning and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. The Building Inspector of the District Town Planner visited the spot on 6th of April, 1978 and reported about the illegal constructions said to have been made by the accused with the purpose to construct a commercial building. He reported further construction from time to time. Thereafter show cause notice was sent to the petitioner on 28.4.1978 whereby he was also directed to stop construction but the petitioner continued the construction and completed his building. After obtaining necessary permission from the District Town Planner, complaint was filed against the petitioner. After recording preliminary evidence petitioner was summoned for committing offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. After appearance of the petitioner pre-charge evidence was also recorded which included evidence of PW.1 R.C. Aggarwal, District Town Planner, Karnal and PW.2 Vijinder Singh, Building Inspector. The trial Magistrate vide his order dated 11th of September, 1990 held that no case against the accused (present petitioner) has been made out which if rebutted would warrant his conviction and keeping in view the provisions of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the accused (present petitioner) was discharged.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard.