STATE OF HARYANA & ORS Vs. JAI BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants-appellants-State of Haryana are in the appeal against the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court.

(2.) For regulated development of the areas around the cities, the Legislature has enacted The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. As per Section 4 of the Act, Government is empowered to declare any area outside the limits of the municipal town or any other area, which in its opinion has the potential for building activities, industrial, commercial or institutional or re-creational estates/activities or uses subservient to the above, to be a controlled area for the purpose of this Act. Section 6 restrict any person to erect and re-erect any building in the aforesaid area.

(3.) It is not in dispute that in the present case, declaration under Section 4 has already been published on 13.06.2006 Ex.D-1. The plaintiff- respondent initially applied for permission but without waiting for the same raised construction right on the road which is a highway. Notices were issued for restoring the property to its original position which prompted the plaintiff to file a suit. The plaintiff claim that he is using this construction for the purpose subservient to the agriculture as he stores agriculture produce therein. The suit was contested and apart from objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the property is being used for commercial purpose. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence dismissed the suit on both the grounds that construction is illegal and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred as per provisions of Section 21 of the Act. However, learned First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment on the ground that the construction is in agriculture land and is 8.6 Kms from the outer boundary of a town. Learned First Appellate Court has also held that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction because notices have been issued to Bazrang properties and not to the present plaintiff.