Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. (Oral):-

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of a memo dated 22.08.2006 finalizing the policy of change of land use and regularization of unauthorized construction/colonies, fixation of conversion charges etc. in terms whereof the status of the land use has been changed from residential to commercial on Model Town Road and Mahavir Marg, Jalandhar.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing in Lajpat Nagar area of Jalandhar for the last 30-35 years which is surrounded by Model Town road on one side and Mahavir Marg on the other side. The plot which was allotted to the petitioner was only for residential purposes. However, unauthorized construction is stated to have cropped up in the area where commercial use has been made and this is stated to be given sanctity of law by the impugned memo dated 22.08.2006 recommending the conversion of land use on fourteen roads. The petitioner submits that in terms of Section 262(2)(g) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the PMC Act, 1976), sanction of a building or work can be refused if it is in contravention of any scheme sanctioned under Section 275 of the PMC Act, 1976. Section 275 of the PMC Act, 1976 mandates the Corporation, if so required by the government, to draw up a building scheme for the built area and a town planning scheme for an un-built area. The commercial construction, thus, is stated to be contrary to the said mandate as the change of land use has not been part of the building scheme for the area and, thus, there cannot be any regularization.

3. The Municipal Corporation/respondent No. 3 has sought to defend its action in issuing the memo dated 22.08.2006. It has been pointed out that a development scheme can always be modified as per Section 275(3) of the PMC Act, 1976. A reference has also been made to the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the PTI Act, 1922) by learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation/respondent No. 3 to contend that under Section 42, the Improvement Trust is required to sanction every scheme, but under Section 43, a scheme can be altered by the Improvement Trust with the prior approval of the government between its sanction and its execution. Under Section 55, the streets vest in the Municipality. In these circumstances, it is stated that the Improvement Trust had vested the streets in the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar.

4. In this behalf, learned counsel has referred to a recent judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in [2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 682 (DB)] CWP-18139-2002 titled as Dr. Balbir Singh Sidhu Vs State of Punjab and others decided on 15.01.2014, where it has been held that a modification of the scheme made under Section 43 of the PTI Act, 1922 need not necessarily be by a notification alone and can be modified by circulars.

5. The most important aspect and a subsequent development has been the notification dated 23.08.2010 by which the final master plan for Jalandhar has been brought into force. This was preceded by issuance of public notices inviting objections, but undisputedly, the petitioner never filed any objections. In terms of the master plan, such mixed land use in the streets in question has been permitted.

6. We have put to the petitioner appearing in person that he having not filed objections to the master plan and the master plan having come into force, how would the grievance in the present writ petition survive once the new master plan has been notified?

7. The petitioner, however, submits that in the present proceedings itself this Court should pronounce its views on the basis of the three following judgements referred to by him:-

(i) K. Ramadas Shenoy Vs The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and others, AIR 1974 (SC) 2177.

8. In this case, sanction had been given by the Municipality to construct a cinema bui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document