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

2014 Supreme(P&H) 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh
CWP No.3045 of 1991
Smt. Savita Rani
v.
The State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 16/01/2014}

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1 and 2:Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Headnote:Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963--Unauthorised construction--Quashing of show cause notice--Contention that action can be taken under Municipal Law and not under Act of 1963 as the property lies within municipal limits--Direction issued to Municipal Council to find whether violation can be compounded--Show cause notice under Scheduled Road Act, quashed. (Para 9)

       

JUDGMENT

Mr. Surya Kant, J. (Oral):- The petitioner owns a plot located on Dhand Road at Mirzapur, Thanesar (Kurukshetra). She constructed a residential house on the said plot. The Municipal Council, Thanesar, initially sanctioned the building plan vide memo dated 06.11.1989 (Annexure P-2) but superseded the same vide a subsequent letter dated 24.01.1990 (Annexure P-3).

2. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice issued by the District Town Planner, Kurukshetra, dated 02.07.1990, under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (in short the “1963 Act”) alleging that she had raised construction in violation of the provisions of that Act.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the show cause notice, approached this Court, contending that the provisions of 1963 Act are inapplicable in an area which falls within the municipal limits.

4. In other words, the petitioner’s contention is that the action against an unauthorized construction, if any, raised within municipal area, can be taken under the Municipal Law and not under the 1963 Act.

5. This Court vide order dated 26.02.1991 directed to maintain status quo which is still operative.

6. There is a sea change meanwhile, by virtue of amendments in both the laws as also the policy decisions. It would, therefore, be ill advised to express any views with reference to the contention raised before this Court in the years 1990-91.

7. Suffice it to observe that even according to the petitioner, action against the alleged unauthorized construction could be taken by the Municipal Council and not by the Town and Country Planning Department.

8. To this extent, there appears to be some substance in the petitioner’s plea.

9. We, thus, allow this writ petition in part to the extent that the impugned show cause notice dated 02.07.1990 (Annexure P-5), is quashed but with liberty to the Municipal Council, Thanesar (Kurukshetra) to hold a fact finding enquiry, as to whether the construction raised by the petitioner is unauthorized? if so, can it be regularized/compoundable and, if not what action can be taken against her in accordance with law?

10. The question of applicability of the provisions of 1963 Act in the municipal limits is kept open and shall be gone into in an appropriate case.

---------0.B.S.0------------



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
whatsapp-icon Back to top