IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:-01.04.2026 Pronounced on:-06.04.2026 Uploaded on:- 07.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment SATPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER …Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Argued by:- Mr. Arun Chander Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Aman Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for quashing of FIR No.279 dated 24.11.2021 registered under Sections 3, 7(i), 7(ii) and 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners only.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations as set out in the FIR are that the petitioners, along-with other co-accused, were involved in carving out an unauthorized colony in the revenue estate of Village Sarawan, Tehsil Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. It is alleged that the said land, which falls within a notified urban area, was illegally divided into plots for residential and commercial purposes without obtaining the requisite licence/permission from the competent authority, namely the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, as mandated under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The FIR, further, records that the accused persons not only subdivided agricultural land and laid roads but also promoted and facilitated sale/transfer of plots in violation of statutory provisions. It is also alleged that despite issuance of show cause notices and passing of restoration orders by the competent authority, the illegal activities were not stopped, compelling the authorities to seek registration of the present FIR against the petitioners and other co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have no role whatsoever in the alleged development of any unauthorized colony. It is submitted that the petitioners were absolute owners of the agricultural land in question and had sold the same through seven duly executed and registered sale deeds (bainamas) in favour of the co-accused persons. The said transactions were bona-fide and pertained only to agricultural land, without any element of plotting or development of a colony. It is, further, contended that after the execution of the said sale deeds, the petitioners had no concern or connection with the said land, and it is the subsequent purchasers/co-accused who, on their own, carved out plots and allegedly developed an unauthorized colony over the said land. Learned counsel submits that the entire allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, pertain to acts allegedly committed after the transfer of ownership and possession, for which the petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable. It is also argued that the petitioners had duly responded to the show cause notices issued by respondent No.2, specifically clarifying that they had sold the land only for agricultural purposes and had no role in any illegal plotting or colonization. The petitioners had categorically stated in their reply that if any violation has been committed, the same is attributable solely to the subsequent purchasers and not to the petitioners. On these premises, it is contended that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as no offence under the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 is made out against them. Accordingly, it is prayed that the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed qua the petitioners.

4. On the ot