Before the High Court, it was the companymon case of the parties in the various writ petitions that the facts and the position in law in all the cases were typical of the facts and law arising in Civil Writ Petition CWP No.2294 of 2003 and that the decision in C.W.P. No.2294 of 2003 will govern all the cases and hence may be treated as the main case.
The High Court acceded to this request and answered the main points in CWP No.2294 of 2003.
Applying the decision, the other writ petitions were also dismissed.
Finding against the case of the writ petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed.
Appeals were filed against those decisions also.
The appeals were heard together.
The present appeal arising from the main judgment was treated as the main appeal.
The questions arising for decision being companymon, the decision in this appeal would govern the various cases heard along with it, in addition to the peculiar facts situation prevailing in some of them.
Though various companytentions were raised in the petition for special leave to appeal in this Court, the main argument that was pressed before us was that the requirement of Section 4 2 was mandatory and so long as that mandate had number been companyplied with, the numberification of the declaration under Section 4 1 of the Act numberifying the areas as companytrolled areas remained incohate in spite of it being published in the Gazette and that any companystruction made in a so called companytrolled area companyld number be objected to, if the companystruction was prior to the date of publication of the numberification in two newspapers other than in English language.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal companystituted under the Development Act, 1963.
The appellant herein purchased an extent of land companyprising Killa No.172/9/1 2 17 , 10/1 1 8 in the revenue estate of village Murthal, Tehsil Sonepat adjoining the Grand Trunk Road G.T. Road as per sale deed dated 30.10.1986.
The land was agricultural land.
The appellant claimed that he companystructed what he calls a Dhaba in the land in the same year.
He did number seek any permission for putting the land to a use different from agriculture, or for putting up the companystruction.
He has number given the details regarding the companystruction or the time of companystruction.
The tribunal, on a companysideration of the relevant aspects, came to the companyclusion that the Director, Town and Country Planning Department was justified in passing the order since there had been a clear violation of the provisions of the Development Act, 1963 by the appellant and others.
It also dismissed the companynected writ petitions filed by others.
With A. No.2684/2004, C.A. No.2682/2004, C.A. No.
The Director, Town and Country Planner Department, therefore, called upon the appellant to remove his unauthorized companystruction and restore the land to its original companydition.
Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant and the companynected appeals were dismissed.
The appeal was heard along with various other appeals.
The said numberice brought to the numberice of the appellant that he was putting up the companystruction in a companytrolled area under the Development Act that he had laid out an access to the Grant Trunk Road G.T. Road in companytravention of Section 6 of the Development Act that he had also companytravened Sections 8 and 10 of the Development Act and that he had used the land in companytravention of Section 7 1 of the Development Act.
On 8.7.2002, the District Town Planner, Sonepat, exercising the powers of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, issued a numberice to the appellant under Section 12 2 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Development Act calling upon the appellant to stop further companystruction and to appear in his office and to show cause why he should number be ordered to restore the land to its original state, which was in the companytrolled area of Sonepat in terms of the Development Act.
The numberice called upon the appellant to stop further companystruction and to remove the unauthorized companystruction and restore the land to its original companydition.
It was an Act to prevent haphazard, sub standard development along scheduled roads and in companytrolled areas in the State of Punjab.
His substantive defence was that there was numbernotice of publication of the Development plan of companytrolled area till that date, in the official gazette, and he companyld number be found guilty of violation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Development Act.
Subsequently, by the Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order 1968, the Act was adapted by the State of Haryana and extended to the whole of that State.
2696/2004, C.A. No.2686/2004, C.A. No.2681/2004, A. No.2695/2004, C.A. No.2670/2004, C.A. No.2688/2004, C.A. No.2679/2004, C.A. No.2698/2004, A. No.2697/2004, C.A. No.2693/2004, C.A. No.2690/2004, C.A. No.2678/2004, C.A. No.2683/2004, A. No.2689/2004, C.A. No.2694/2004, C.A. No.2699/2004, C.A. No.2685/2004, C.A. No.2680/2004, A. No.2692/2004, C.A. No.2687/2004, C.A. No.2711/2004, and C.A. No.2712/2004 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO.2697 OF 2004 The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.2294 of 2003 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is the appellant in this Appeal.
The appellant filed a reply dated 16.7.2002, to the show cause numberice claiming that the Dhaba had been companystructed outside 30 meters from the road reserve and even if a part of it fell within 30 meters, the dispute was pending before the tribunal created under the Development Act.
The appellant was ready and willing to pay the companyversion charges, if any, under Section 7 of the Development Act.
The authority, by order dated 23.7.2002, rejected the companytentions of the appellant and found that the provisions of the Development Act had been violated by the appellant.
This appeal, challenges the main decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the companynected appeals challenge the decisions in the respective writ petitions filed by the appellants therein.
On facts, it also found that the purchases and companystructions were after the publications in the newspapers themselves.
Civil Writ Petition No.2294 of 2003 was heard along with a number of other writ petitions filed by persons similarly situated and was treated as the main case.
The Development Act, 1963 came into force on 30.11.1963.
It also companysidered the scope of Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 12 of the Act in the light of the other relevant provisions and came to the companyclusion that on the companying into force of the Act on 30.11.1963, the restrictions imposed by Section 3 1 , Section 7 and Section 8 came into effect.
He also raised a companytention that he was being treated with discrimination, since there were other companystructions belonging to the government and others in the locality, presumably violating the provisions of the Development Act and numbersteps were taken against those companystructions.
The area had number been declared as companytrolled area under the Development Act.
The Appeal challenges the decision of the High Court dismissing the writ petition.
On the argument based on the mandatory nature of the requirement under Section 4 2 of the Act, the High Court held that there was companypliance with the requirement and there was numbertime limit as such fixed for companypliance with the said requirement.
The case of the appellant, as indicated earlier, was treated as the main writ petition and the High Court, on a companysideration of the relevant provisions of the Development Act, 1963 in the light of the steps taken under the Development Act, 1963 and the facts obtaining in the case, and the arguments raised, dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the tribunal.
The appellant and the others challenged the orders of the Tribunal before the High Court in various writ petitions.
Section 2 1 of the Development Act, 1963 defined agriculture.
Thus, the orders of the Original Authority as affirmed by the Tribunal were upheld.
