JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-10), passed by respondent No.1 vide which the appeal filed by petitioner No.1 M/s Mahaluxmi Creations against the order dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure P-4) was dismissed. The petitioners also seeks quashing of the order dated 07.05.2021, passed by respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of land measuring 20 kanals 17 marlas situated in Village Kohand, District Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute'). As per petitioner No.1, the land in dispute was sold to petitioners No.2 & 3 and three other persons namely Nitin Kumar, Anil and Rajesh vide registered sale deed dated 02.12.2021 (There is no petitioner No.3 in the present petition though averments in the writ petition mention so). It is claimed that possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the vendees. It is further claimed that the land in dispute is agricultural land and was sold as such. A show cause notice dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-3) under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Act') was served upon the petitioners alleging that an unauthorized colony had been carved out on the land in dispute. The said show cause notice also stated that the land in dispute was situated within urban area of Gharaunda and no licence or permit had been taken from the competent authorities in terms of the provisions of the 1975 Act. No reply was filed to the said show cause notice. It has been averred in the writ petition that since the petitioners were under the impression that the land in dispute does not fall within urban area, there was no violation of the provisions of the 1975 Act. However, they appeared before the authorities and orally submitted that the land in dispute did not fall within an urban area and, therefore, no reply was filed.

3. It has further been averred that order dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure P-4) was issued by respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioners to restore the land in dispute to its original state. An FIR (Annexure P-6) was also registered against the petitioners. The order dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure P-4) was challenged by way of an appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-10) which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

4. The basic case of the petitioners is that the land in dispute had never been notified by the respondents as an urban area as defined under Section 2 (o) of the 1975 Act and, therefore, the provisions of the 1975 Act were not applicable as a result of which the action being initiated against the petitioners was illegal and arbitrary.

5. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the record of the writ petition.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously urged that since the land in dispute does not fall within the definition of urban area, the action initiated by the respondents is not sustainable. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to Section 2 (c), Section 2 (o), Section 3 , Section 7 , Section 7 (a) and Section 10 of the 1975 Act and has submitted that the action of the authorities is not in conformity with the provisions of the 1975 Act. Stress has been laid on the point that no notification declaring the land in dispute as an urban area had been issued by the Government and, therefore, the penal provisions would not apply. Learned Senior Counsel has specifically referred to the definition of urban area as per Section 2 (o) of th