BHAGWAT GITA FOUNDATION Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and for permanent injunction challenging the notice 8.1.1993 issued by the District Town Planner, Panchkula, as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, was dismissed.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that the plaintiff is a charitable institution which is carrying on sacred religious objectives for public purposes and social welfare of the people. It is pleaded by the appellant that the land in dispute was taken on lease from Mari Gold Leasing India Limited vide agreements dated 28.6.1992 and 30.6.1992 and purchased vide sale deed dated 15.1.1993. It was pointed out that the suit property is situated at Village Bhawana, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. The said land was Barani without water and surrounded by jungles and that in the year 1968 the families built a Gurdwara. The land in the said village was allotted to the Sikh families migrated from Pakistan, for residential houses and for other infrastructure for running their livelihood. The appellant alleged that the disputed property does not fall within 10 miles from outer boundary of the land acquired for New Capital of Chandigarh as its distance from the outer boundary is more than 16 miles. It is also pleaded that with great efforts and huge investments, the plaintiff repaired the existing building, made renovation therein, uplifted the faces and altered the existing building retaining the original walls and water ponds for religious and social purposes, after getting sanction from the competent authority i.e. the Gram Panchayat, Toran. It was alleged that the notice dated 8.1.1993, issued by the District Town Planner alleging unauthorized construction of building and threatening that they would demolish the building of Alpine Public School, is wrong, illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void. The notice dated 8.1.1993 was alleged to be frivolous, unwarranted and without authority and alleged to have been issued to harass the charitable body.

(3.) THE learned trial Court dismissed the suit after finding that the notice Exhibit D-2 was issued by the District Town Planner under Section 12 of the Act to show cause why the land should not be restored as such construction has contravened the provisions of the Act. Thus, it was found that the notice is not illegal. Such finding was affirmed in appeal as well.