SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Town Planning Scheme of unbuilt area around Mukand Lal, Government Civil Hospital, Jagadhri Road at Yamunanagar (for short the scheme) was drawn up by the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar and the same was sanctioned by the State Government on 2.8.1983 under sub-section (3) of Section 203 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). Petitioners who are residents of Yamunanagar filed this petition in the year 1996 for a mandamus directing the respondents to initiate and finalise the development works, to provide internal services as soon as possible and complete the implementation of the scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Their grievance is that the scheme around Lal Dwara was introduced in the year 1979 and after completing the procedure prescribed in Section 203 of the Act, the same was completed and sanctioned in 1983 but no steps have been taken by the respondents in implementing the same. Petitioners claim that they and several others who have purchased plots in the said scheme have been requesting the respondents to carry out their mandatory duties and implement the scheme but to no avail.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is admitted that the land under the scheme has not been carved out into plots as per the Town Planning Scheme and that the area has not been properly developed and only isolated houses have been constructed by some plot holders without paying any development charges who are said to have raised constructions in violation of the Municipal Laws and that most of the area is lying unbuilt. It is also pleaded that it is not possible to provide civil amenities to the isolated houses who have raised construction in violation of the building Rules. During the pendency of the writ petition respondents 4 to 14 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as respondents in the writ petition as they claim to be the owners of the land covered by the scheme. Since this application was not opposed the applicants were allowed to be impleaded. They then filed an application for vacation of the interim order passed by this court on 18.3.1997 whereby some directions were issued to the respondents. The grievance of these respondents is that since a period of more than five years has lapsed from the date when the scheme was sanctioned the same has lapsed and cannot now be enforced. It is pleaded on their behalf that the writ petition has become infructuous and the same be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and on their request the main writ petition is being disposed of along with the application for the vacation of the interim order.