Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hari Pal Verma
CWP No. 16862 of 2013 (O&M)
Anil Kumar & Ors.
v.
Union Territory Chandigarh & Ors.
{Decided on 09/02/2015}
For the Petitioners:Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate.
For the Petitioners CWP No.3286 of 2014:Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondents CWP No.3286 of 2014:Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate.
Headnote:(A) East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, S.2(bb)--The Extension of abadi--Held; it is a common purpose in terms of Section 2(bb)--Such extension can be ordered only at the time of consolidation--The process of the consolidation is not a right which can be claimed by a proprietor at any time--The act of consolidation of agriculture holdings is a matter of policy, which cannot be directed by High Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
In view of the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the land for abadi is carved out during the consolidation or can be reserved for extension of the abadi during consolidation, which is again a common purpose--The petitioners, who are in occupation of small portions of the land outside abadi have no right to assert that abadi area should be extended, as extension of abadi is the common purpose for which the land can be reserved in the manner prescribed under the Statute alone--It is for the consolidation authorities as and when the consolidation is undertaken to reserve the land for extension of abadi--As is made out from the record, the land over which the petitioners are in possession, is part of the land falling within the Municipal Corporation--For planned city of Chandigarh, haphazard growth over the private land, is not contemplated--It will change the edifice of the city.
(B) Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006--Applicability of Scheme--Petitioners claimed to be owners of the private land and thus cannot be treated at par with encroachers on the public land--There is, thus, no parity of the petitioners with the slum dwellers, for whose benefits the aforesaid scheme was framed.
Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16862 of 2013 and 3286 of 2014, raising identical questions of law and facts. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken from CWP No. 16862 of 2013.
2. The petitioners claim to be residing in Chandigarh for the last 20-30 years. It is pleaded that most of the petitioners are working as Class-IV employees in the Government institutions on contract basis and are getting the minimum wages. It is pleaded that initially, the petitioners and their families were living in rented accommodations in Chandigarh within the Abadi land of the villages. After the villages were included in the Municipal Corporation, the rentals have increased, therefore, it was difficult for them to afford accommodation within the Lal Dora, therefore, they are residing outside the abadi area which was demarcated in 1918. It is pointed out that the Punjab Settlement Manual defines Abadi to mean as under:-
“The village site should be measured in one number, together with the small plots attached in which cattle are penned, manure is stored and straw is stacked and waste attached to the village site. The entry in the column of ownership and occupancy will be simple abadi deh.”
3. The petitioners rely upon the judgments of this Court reported as Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1996(2) RRR 61; State of Haryana v. Pritam Singh, 2001(3) PLR 94 and a Single Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reported as Kewal Ram v. Gram Panchayat Bhutti, 1989(5) Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes page 417, to contend that the abadi area is required to be extended so as to exempt the petitioners from the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) in terms of Section 15 of the Act. The argument is that abadi area with the passage of time is required to be extended and once abadi area is extended, the land in question would cease to be governed by the Act. It is also pointed out that the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, is not applicable to the area which forms part of the Abadi. The petitioners have made reference to certain statutory provisions prevailing in the State of Haryana, but we find that such provisions in the neighbouring State of Haryana, are not relevant to determine the claim of the petitioners for allotment of flats to the petitioners on the same pattern were allotted to the slum dwellers under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006.
4. In reply, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners are residents of Dhanas, a controlled area under the Act. The petitioners have raised constructions within the abadi without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5 of the Act and thus contravened Sections 5, 6 and 11 of the Act by raising illegal constructions. The notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were served upon the petitioners and sufficient opportunities were provided to them, but without filing reply to the show cause notices, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the notices. It is pointed out that the petitioners have no right or equity in law, when they have violated the provisions of the Act. It is pointed out that the Act came into force on 12.1.1953 and the Administration declared the land within the limits of 5 miles from the outer limits of Capital side of Chandigarh as controlled area. The said limits were later on extended to 10 miles as controlled area. The petitioners were entitled to use the land for the purpose of agriculture and for the purposes subservient thereto. Similar argument as raised by the petitioner for extension of Lal Dora, was raised before this Court in CWP No. 6169 of 2010 – Vijay Bansal vs. State of Haryana’ decided on 24.3.2014 and such argument was declined. Therefore, to prevent the haphazard growth and to keep the land reserved for future growth of the Chandigarh, it has become important to preserve the area. No individ
