Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varender Gaur And Ors. vs The State Of Haryana And Ors. on 7 January, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)106PLR620
ORDER
G.R. Majithia and S.K. Jain, JJ.
1. Petitioners No. 1 to 5 sons of Shri Paryag Dutt and petitioner No. 6, widow of Shri Paryag Dutt, have sought a declaration from this Court that the Town Planning Scheme No. 5 of unbuilt area framed by Municipal Committee, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, duly sanctioned by the State Government, stood lapsed and the possession of the land of the petitioners covered under the Scheme should be restored back to them, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Town Planning Scheme No. 5 (for short, the Scheme) was prepared by Municipal Committee, Thanesar, under Section 203, of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short the Act) and it was sanctioned by the Haryana Government on October 30, 1975. Land measuring 560 square yards comprised in Khasra No. 202/11/2, 200/2/1, 201/15/2 and 200/10 belonged to Raj Kumar and Prayag Dutt in equal shares. This land was included in the Scheme. Raj Kumar or his tenants challenged the scheme unsuccessfully through various civil suits, Shri Prayag Dutt dies in the year 1964 leaving many heirs including the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the Scheme on identical grounds as were taken by Raj Kumar, co-owner or his tenants.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing stated that he was not in a position to urge that the Scheme had lapsed. He, however, maintained that the land owned by the petitioners comprised in the Scheme had been diverted for purposes other than that mentioned in the Scheme which is impermissible and their share in land be restored to them.
4. Municipal Committee, Thanesar, in its written statement has stated that the Scheme was implemented within the stipulated period. The disputed land has been leased out to Punjabi Samaj Sabha (Regd). Kurukshetra under the policy decision taken by the State Government vide Memo No. 8/182-2-C.II-79, dated April 23, 1982.
5. The Punjabi Samaj Sabha in its written statement stated that the Municipal Committee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 23,43,000/- on the execution of development work in Town Planning Scheme No. 5. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, through Memo No. 8/181/2-CII-79, dated April 23, 1982, had conveyed the Government's decision to the Administrators of all Municipal Committees in Haryana to lease out municipal land to Charitable/Social/Religious institutions on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was provided therein that municipal land could be allotted on 99 years leasehold basis to Charitable/Social/Religious institutions, registered/recognised, operating for public purpose without any profit such as schools, colleges, hostels, charitable dispensaries, Janjghars, Sarais, libraries, etc. The Municipal Committee leased out the land to Punjabi Samaj Sabha, Kurukshetra, after obtaining approval conveyed vide letter No. 8/71/90-2C-I, dated April 3, 1991. The Punjabi Samaj Sabha deposited the lease money and construction is in progress and an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- has already been spent. The Municipal Committee has leased out the Municipal land to the Punjabi Samaj Sabha, Kurukshetra in conformity with the decision taken by the State Government and the latter is constructing a Dharmsala on it, a permissible purpose for which the Municipal land could be leased out.
6. The Scheme was framed under Section 203 of the Act and the owners whose land formed part of the scheme were given notice for filing objections. Their objections were duly considered by the Deputy Commissioners. The Scheme along with the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner on the objections filed by the land- owners and the manner in which the expenses for developing the land had to be incurred were conveyed to the State Government and the State Government sanctioned the Scheme under sub-section (5) of Section 203 of the Act. The only requirement is that the Scheme has to be implemented within a period of five years from the date of its sanction by the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the Scheme has been implemented within the stipulated period of five years. His objection that the land comprised in the Scheme could not be diverted for the purpose other than the one mentioned in the Scheme is not correct. The land covered under the Scheme has been used for permissible purposes which has been duly sanctioned by the State Government. The lease in favour of the Punjabi Samaj Sabha, Kurukshetra, has been granted by the Municipal Committee with the prior sanction of the State Government and the lessee is constructing a Dharamsa la on the land, which is obviously a public purpose. A large number of visitors visit the holly place, Kurukshetra, and in order to provide accommodation to the pilgrims, the Dharamasala is being constructed.
7. Apart from this, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on account of laches and delay. The Scheme was sanctioned in 1975 and was implemented in 1980. The objection to the scheme has been raised through this writ petition which was filed on July 28,1993, after a lapse of more than 17 years.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.