Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S.Nehra, J.
Mange Ram
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10948 of 1992,
Decided On : MAY 6, 1993
HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF URBAN AREAS ACT, 1975 - SECTION 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 - ADVERTISEMENT FOR SALE OF PLOTS IN A COLONY WITHOUT A LICENSE - QUASHING OF FIR - COURT HELD THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a property dealer, was accused of violating Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, by advertising the sale of plots in a colony without obtaining a license. The petitioner argued that he had not made any advertisement for selling plots in a colony and that he was only advertising his services as a property dealer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not own any land in the colony and that he had not made any advertisement qua any plot in a colony. The court held that the petitioner had not violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and that the FIR lodged against him was liable to be quashed.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, by advertising the sale of plots in a colony without obtaining a license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had not violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Act because he had not made any advertisement for selling plots in a colony. The court also held that the petitioner was within his rights to advertise his services as a property dealer.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR lodged against the petitioner and ordered the proceedings pending against him in the court to be dropped.
A.S.Nehra, J.
1. Mange Ram has filed this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F. I. R, 531 dated December 27, 1990, under Sections 10/7/75 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, (hereinafter called the Act) which was registered at the instance of District Town Planner, Hissar respondent No. 2. The allegations mentioned in the F. I. R. are as under :-
"From DTP HSR to S. P. HSR memo No. 1822 DPT (E) DT. 26. 11. 90 Sub : -Infringement of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act. 1975-lodging of FIR. It is brought to your notice that M/s Bharat Property Dealer near Bus Stand, Hissar Phone No. 2906 has advertised in PARVA at 9.11.90 for sale of Residential/Industrial/Plot in New Auto Market Colony, Sirsa Road, Hissar without obtaining a licence from the Director Town Planner Haryana as required under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The photo of the unauthorised colorly is attached herewith. He has thus contravened the Section 7 (i) of the said Act. This act on the part of M/s Bharat Property Dealer, near Bus Stand Hissar, constituted an offence punishable under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The place of occurrence falls in the jurisdiction of the Police Station Sadar, Hissar. The offence committed as mentioned above may please be got investigated and FIR registered. The sanction of law of the District Magistrate, Hissar may please be obtained before putting the challan in the Court as required Under Section 11 of the said Act."
The petitioner has alleged in para 4 of the petition that he is neither owner shareholder or proprietor and he has no relationship directly or indirectly with any colony, therefore, question of infringement, of Section 3 of the Act does not arise and no offence under Section 7 of the Act is made out against the petitioner.
2. The advertisement which appeared in the newspaper "PARMA" daily dated 9th November, 1990 reads as under :-
"Contact for purchase and sale of shops and plots in New Auto Market Sirsa Road, Hissar. Bharat Property Dealer, Hissar. Phone No. 2906."
3 Notice of this petition was given to the respondents and reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Hissar. Superintendent of Police, Hissar has stated in para 2 of his reply that it is specifically, denied being incorrect that no offence is made out as per allegations contained in the F. I. R. It has further been mentioned in para 4 of the reply that the case of the petitioner falls under Section 7 (i) of the Act and, therefore petitioner is liable to be tried under Section 10 of the Act.
4. Mr. B. S. Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner has referred to the definition of "Colony" and Section 7 of the Act which reads as under: Colony:
"Colony" means an area of land divided or proposed to be divided into plots for residential, commercial or industrial purposes but an area of land divided or, proposed to be divided : - (i) for the purpose of agriculture, or
(ii) as a result of family partition, inheritance, succession or partition of joint holding not with the motive or earning profit, or
(iii) in furtherance of any scheme sanctioned under any other law; or
(iv) by the owner of a factory for setting up a housing colony for the labourers of the employees working in the factory provided there is no profit motive; or
(v) when it does not exceed one thousand square meters, shall not be a colony." Section 7 of the Act.
"Save as provided in Section 9, no person shall-
(i) without obtaining a licence under Section 3 transfer or agree to transfer in any manner plots in a colony or make an advertisement. or receive any amount in respect thereof;
(ii) erect or re-erect any building in any colony in respect of which a licence under Section 3 has not been granted.
(iii) erect or re-erect any building other than for purposes of a
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
