SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 247

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
DASHMESH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4684-4685 OF 2005 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.19226 of 2013 & SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20235 of 2013
Decided On : 25-03-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Consideration of subsequent events sometime become essential for disposal of a case.

Headnote:(a) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 2 – Determination of nature of land whether forest land – Parallel civil appeal concerning the same village remanded to High Court – High Court adopting a procedure of survey – Instantly High Court not considering report of the said survey and deciding the case on peripheral issues – High Court ought to first decide whether the land is forest land – Matter reminded. (Para 10, 11)

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Petitioner in possession of land since 1988 – Number of notifications issued over the period, the last being of 2004 – Petitioner filing writ petition in 2013 – High Court rightly dismissed the same on ground of delay and latches. (Para 16)

       Facts of the case:

       The plaintiff, a registered body had sought permission for setting up a forest hill country club/resort. According to the plaintiff the project was a non polluting industry and was capable of generating substantial employment.

       No action was subsequently forthcoming despite several representations/ reminders submitted by the plaintiff. Therefore the suit was filed.

       The suit was decreed and the first appeals filed by the State and PUDA were also dismissed by the learned District Judge.

       The High Court allowed the second appeals and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court ought to have considered survey report in parallel appeal and subsequent events.

       Result: CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4684-4685 OF 2005 disposed of. Both SLP (C) Nos. 19226 of 2013 & 20235 of 2013 are dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The plaintiff in civil Suit No.65 of 2001 i.e. Dashmesh Education Society has preferred these appeals against the common order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA Nos. 4328 and 4345 of 2002. By the aforesaid order, the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff, which was affirmed in first appeal, has been reversed by the High Court.

2. Civil Suit No.65 of 2001 was filed seeking a declaration that the Application dated 21.8.1998 filed by the plaintiff before the defendants seeking permission for setting up a Country Club/Resort at village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar is deemed to have been allowed and permission granted/sanctioned, the same having not been refused in writing within the statutory period of 90 days of its submission as mandated by the provisions of the Punjab New Capital Periphery Control Act, 1952. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought “restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering in any manner in the works undertaken by the plaintiff over the land and from demolishing the constructions/developments already made over the suit land forcibly or in any other manner.”

3. According to the plaintiff, a registered body, by application dated 21.08.1998 it had sought permission for setting up a forest hill country club/resort within the area of village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. According to the plaintiff the project was a non polluting industry and was capable of generating substantial employment. The plaint averments also disclosed that it is the case of the plaintiff that the area over which the resort was planned is covered by the provisions of the Punjab New Capital Periphery Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”). The application dated 21.08.1998 submitted by the plaintiff under the said Act had initially invoked the response of the defendants in the suit who had asked for submission of site plan/location plan etc., all of which requirements were complied with by the plaintiff. No action was subsequently forthcoming despite several representations/ reminders submitted by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, under Section 5 of the Act of 1952 a decision was required to be taken by the respondents within 90 days, failing which, the application of the plaintiff must be deemed to have been accepted. Hence the suit claiming the reliefs earlier noticed.

4. The suit was contested by the State of Punjab as well as the Punjab Urban Areas Development Authority (PUDA) contending, inter alia, that the application filed by the plaintiff was not under Section 5 of the Act of 1952 as the essential requirements thereof were not complied with.

Consequently, no question of deemed permission can and does arise. The suit was also claimed to be not maintainable as the Forest Department of the State, a necessary party, was not impleaded. Specifically it was contended that the land falls within the purview of the Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900 (hereinafter referred to as PLPA) and attracts the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. It was accordingly urged that the land could not be used by any non forest purpose without the prior approval of the Union Government and that the State Government was not competent in law to give permission for setting up of the country club/resort without due permission from the Government of India.

5. The suit, as mentioned earlier, was decreed and the first appeals filed by the State and PUDA were also dismissed by the learned District Judge by order dated 30.04.2002. Aggrieved, RSA Nos.4328 and 4345 of 2002 were instituted before the High Court by the PUDA and the State wherein by the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004 the High Court allowed the second appeals and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. It is ag


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top