Back
1988 Supreme(P&H) 549
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.V.Sehgal, J.
Indian Oil Corporation Through Sh. A.P.Jain, Assistant Manager
Versus
Municipality Thanesar, Through Its Administrator
Civil Writ Petition No. 5057 of 1988,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 1, 1988
A town planning scheme lapses if it is not implemented within five years of its sanction, and the municipality cannot force an owner to part with 25% of his unbuilt area for the scheme after the lapse of the scheme.
Headnote:
HARYANA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1973 - SECTION 203 - TOWN PLANNING SCHEME - LAPSE OF SCHEME - OWNERSHIP OF LAND - ESTOPPEL - REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTION - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION - WRIT PETITION - CIVIL REVISION PETITION - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an oil corporation, and its dealer entered into an agreement for the installation of a petrol pump on a leased site. The respondent municipality had sanctioned a town planning scheme for the area, including the site in dispute, but had not implemented it. The dealer agreed to give 25% of the unbuilt area to the municipality for the scheme. However, the municipality later constructed walls segregating one of the diesel pumps, obstructing access to it. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the municipality's action, and the dealer filed a civil revision petition against the dismissal of his application for an injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the municipality's action. The court also held that the town planning scheme had lapsed as it was not implemented within five years of its sanction. The court further held that the dealer's statement admitting the municipality's ownership of the disputed area was made in ignorance of his legal rights and did not divest him of his rights in the site. The court also found that the municipality had not implemented the scheme in respect of any other owner in the area.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition. 2. Whether the town planning scheme had lapsed. 3. Whether the dealer's statement admitting the municipality's ownership of the disputed area was binding on him. 4. Whether the municipality had implemented the scheme in respect of any other owner in the area.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner had locus standi as it had the ownership of the petrol and diesel pumps installed at the site in dispute and the obstruction caused by the municipality affected the marketing of its products. 2. The town planning scheme had lapsed as it was not implemented within five years of its sanction, as required by Section 203(6) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. 3. The dealer's statement admitting the municipality's ownership of the disputed area was made in ignorance of his legal rights and did not divest him of his rights in the site. 4. The municipality had not implemented the scheme in respect of any other owner in the area, which showed that the municipality was selectively targeting the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the municipality to remove the obstruction and restore possession of the site to the petitioner. The court also allowed the civil revision petition without any order as to costs.
D.V.Sehgal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 5057 of 1988 and C.R. No. 1102 of 1988. The subject-matter of dispute in both of them being the same and the questions of law involved being common, it is expedent to dispose them of together. Reference to the parties, facts and documents, unless otherwise specified, shall, however be made from C.W.P. No. 5057 of 1988.
2. When C.R. No. 1102 of 1988 was at the motion stage, an order was passed on 6.5.1988 by M.S. Liberhan, J. appointing Shri Rajan Gupta, Advocate as Local Commissioner to inspect the spot and submit his report within a week on the following points:-
(i) Whether any wall has been constructed ?
(ii) Whether there is any interference in the working of the petrol pump.
The Local Commissioner submitted his report dated 11.5.1988. The Administrator, Municipality Thanesar (Kurukshetra), respondent therein, filed C.M. No. 2456-CII of 1988 vide which certain objections were raised against the report of the Local Commissioner. Surinder Singh petitioner therein, on the other hand, filed C.M. No. 2460-CII of 1988 vide which were appended therewith. Surinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as `the dealer) is a lessee for 99 years of land comprising Khewat No. 1449, Khatoin No. 1678, Khasra No. 216/2/2 measuring 3 Kanals 3 Marlas situated in Dara Kalan within the limits of Municipal Committee, Thenesar, Kurukshetra, respondent, by virtue of a registered lease deed dated 4.10.1968. This fact is mentioned in his plaint Annexure R.10 filed in the Court of the learned Sub Judge, Kurukshetra, which has not been disputed by the respondent in its written statement Annexure R. 11 to the said suit. As is evident from the other documents placed on the record, this land is situated on the Pehowa-Pipli road within the municipal limits and has substantial commercial importance. Surinder Singh entered into an agreement of dealership with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., petitioner, whereby the petitioner agreed to install retail outlet on the aforesaid site inter-alia, on the condition that he shall lease out to the petitioner the licensed premises together with all the structures thereon and the rental will be Rs. 250/- permonth for the first ten years and Rs. 300/- per month for the next ten years. The petitioner in turn was to recover from the dealer licence fee at the rate of Rs. 250/- plus Rs. 50/- per month for the first ten years and Rs. 300/- plus Rs. 50/- per month for the next ten years. These terms are mentioned in a letter dated 11.5.1976 addressed by the petitioner to the dealer which was placed before me during the course of arguments. A photostat copy of the agreement entered into between them was also produced for my perusal which, inter-alia contains the condition that the dealer shall not sell, assign, sub-let, mortgage, charge or part with or otherwise transfer the premises or any part thereof, or his interests in the dealership. If for any reason the forfeiture of the site is imminent or the forfeiture shall be actually incurred, the dealer shall forthwith report the matter to the petitioner. The petitioner was to obtain in its name a storage licence for the Inspector of Explosives for the storage of petroleum products at the said premises and also other licences and permissions from the Central/State Government/local authorities. The dealer was to reimburse the petitioner any fees or charges paid on that account.
3. It is the case of the respondent that the Government of Haryana vide letter dated 11.8.1972 Annexure Rule 1 had decided that no one should be permitted to set up/open a petrol pump within the limits of the municipal committees. The dealer made an application Annexure Rule 2 to the then Minister for Local Government, Haryana, for allowing him to set up a petrol pump at the site in dispute. The Government vide letter dated 18.5.1976 Annexure Rule 3 asked the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, to give his comments and make recommendations on the
