Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Committee vs Partap Singh And Anr on 4 December, 2014
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Deepak Sibal
L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 121 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 26, 2014
Municipal Committee (now,
Municipal Corporation), Bathinda .... Appellant
Vs.
Partap Singh and another .... Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 114 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 26, 2014
Municipal Committee (now,
Municipal Corporation), Bathinda .... Appellant
Vs.
Surinder Singh and another .... Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 26, 2014
Municipal Committee (now,
Municipal Corporation), Bathinda .... Appellant
Vs.
Mrs. Pal Kaur @ Jaspal Kaur
and another .... Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 116 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 26, 2014
Municipal Committee (now,
Municipal Corporation), Bathinda .... Appellant
MONIKA
2014.12.09 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 2
Vs.
Mrs. Darshan Kaur and another .... Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 26, 2014
Municipal Committee (now,
Municipal Corporation), Bathinda .... Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Saraswati Devi and others .... Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 178 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 26, 2014
Municipal Committee (now,
Municipal Corporation), Bathinda .... Appellant
Vs.
Jagjit Singh and others .... Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 235 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 26, 2014
The Nagrik Chetna Manch,
Bathinda and another .... Appellant
Vs.
Jagjit Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.
* * *
MONIKA
2014.12.09 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 3
Present : Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate
for the appellant (in LPA Nos.121, 114, 115, 116,
134 and 178 of 2008) and
for the respondent no.5 in LPA No. 235 of 2008.
None for the appellant in LPA No. 235 of 2008.
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr. B. B. S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the respondents (in LPA Nos.121, 115, 116 & 178 of 2008)
None for respondents in LPA Nos.114 and 134 of 2008.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. :
The present is a bunch of seven intra court appeals bearing L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 114 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 115 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 116 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 134 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 178 of 2008 and L. P. A. No. 235 of 2008, filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10.10.2007, through which seven writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed through a common order.
As common issues of fact and law are involved in the above referred appeals, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 - Municipal Committee, Bathinda vs. Partap Singh and another.
Respondent Partap Singh approached this Court through a writ petition seeking quashing of Town Planning Scheme prepared by the MONIKA 2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 4 appellant. He had averred that one Sohan Lal owned a large tract of land, which fell within the Scheme. The said Sohan Lal sold his land to different persons including one Gian Singh. The respondent, through a sale deed dated 01.04.1982, purchased 400 sq. yds. from the said Gian Singh. The respondent had averred that he had raised construction on this piece of land and was residing thereupon. He challenged the Scheme on the grounds that :-
(i) no Town Planning Scheme could be framed
when the area was built up ;
(ii) the time gap between the primary
notification and final notification was more than three years and no compensation has been paid or announced ;
(iii) the Scheme was otherwise invalid because the entire land belonging to the respondent had been taken away ;
(iv) no notice was given to the respondent ; and
(v) the Scheme was otherwise violative of
Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. The respondent had further submitted that the impugned Scheme had been rescinded and in pursuance thereto, the Government had directed a fresh Scheme to be prepared. According to the respondent, MONIKA 2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 5 though the rescinding order had been later withdrawn, but the Scheme always continued to be in a fluid state as there was a lot of correspondence on the record between the Government and the appellant, regarding framing of a fresh Scheme. In view of this fact, the respondent had stated that there being no concrete Scheme in position, even after the passage of several years, the Scheme deserved to be quashed.
On notice having been issued, the appellant filed the written statement to the writ petition, preferred by the respondent. All the submissions made on behalf of the respondent were controverted.
The writ petition filed by the respondent was sought to be dismissed not only on the ground of delay, but also on merits. It was submitted that the Scheme in question was for unbuilt area and the process for bringing the Scheme into operation had started way back in the year 1973. It was further submitted that though the Scheme was rescinded at one point of time, but that order was soon withdrawn by the Government.
The learned Single Judge considered the issues raised by both the parties and vide the impugned judgment, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent. Aggrieved against that decision, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have also gone through the record of the case including the judgment under appeal. Before proceeding further with the matter, the MONIKA 2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 6 sequence of events with regard to declaration of the Scheme in question is tabulated below :-
02.09.1973 : Area was declared as unbuilt. 06.10.1975 : Public Notice issued inviting objections.
305 objections were received.
15.06.1977 : Revised layout plan was published.
117 objections were received.
04.01.1978 : Objections were heard by Administrator-cum-
Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda.
Sent to District Town Planner to revise the layout plan.
02/07.05.1979 : Revised Layout Plan published.
101 objections were received.
Notice issued to Objectors for 12.09.1979 for hearing objections.
12.09.1979 : Objections were heard.
Final layout plan prepared and sent to Govt. for final notification.
09.09.1983/ : Final notification issued by sanctioning the town 31.08.1983 planning and described in layout drawing no.
(P-3)(Pg.71) DTP(B)35/81 dated 13.02.1981.
From the above, it is clear that the proceedings qua the Scheme in question started on 02.09.1973, culminating in the issuance of the final notification sanctioning the Town Planning Scheme in the year 1983. During the above period, several land owners submitted their objections, but it is the admitted case of the parties that neither the respondent nor his predecessor-in-interest filed any such objection. Had the land in question MONIKA 2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 7 been built-up, objections would have certainly been filed as the Scheme was for un-built area. Thus, it can safely be presumed that the land in question was unbuilt. Even after the publication of final notification, sanctioning the Town Planning Scheme, no objection was filed by either the respondent or his predecessor-in-interest. It is true that vide order dated 08.02.1995, the Governor of Punjab amended the Scheme qua Pocket-A. This amendment would not affect the respondent as his land was in Pocket-C. Irrespective of the same, the order of the Governor dated 08.02.1995 amending Pocket-A was rescinded vide order dated 17.05.1995. Thereafter, through another order dated 28.07.1998, the Governor of Punjab amended Pocket-C of the Town Planning Scheme, but this order was also rescinded within three months of its issuance i.e. on 22.10.1998. The record further reveals that thereafter there was no amendment to the Town Planning Scheme finally notified in the year 1983. In fact, through an affidavit dated 18.02.2009, the appellant has brought on record that the total land covered under the Scheme was 9,24,240 sq. yds. and till the date of filing of the affidavit, 98% of the Scheme already stood implemented. Only 2% of the land covered under the Scheme including the plots of land, which were subject matter of the present litigation, remained unutilized. It was further brought out in the affidavit that the plots of land under the ownership of the respondent, as also other respondents in the connected appeals, were meant to be developed as parks, but due to the present litigation, the same could not be MONIKA 2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 8 done.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to several letters exchanged between the Government of Punjab and the appellant, wherein issues had been raised to revise the Scheme. According to the learned counsel, the situation being kept fluid for several years, the notification with regard to the Town Planning Scheme deserved to be quashed. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the land under the ownership of the respondent was built-up area and thus, could not be considered part of the Town Planning Scheme, which was for development of un-built area only.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the present appeal deserves to succeed. As per the table reproduced above, which was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the process leading to the issuance of the final notification sanctioning the Town Planning Scheme, started on 02.09.1973. It culminated on the issuance of the final notification in the year 1983. In the integrum, various opportunities were granted to the land owners to file their objections. Admittedly, no objection was filed either by the respondent or his predecessor-in-interest. Even after issuance of the notification sanctioning the Town Planning Scheme, no objection was filed by the respondent or his predecessor-in-interest. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to say that the area under his ownership was built-up area. MONIKA 2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 9 The averments made in the writ petition filed by the respondent that he had constructed a house on the land in question and was residing in it, are also liable to be rejected not only because the same are vague, but also for the reason that photographs, which are on record, belie such claim. Further, there is no averment made by the respondent giving any detail of any construction made on the plot in question. If any construction is to be made within the municipal limits, then the first thing that is required to be done is to get a plan sanctioned. Then there are orders sanctioning any plan or releasing any electricity and water connections etc. Still further, a perusal of the sale deed dated 01.04.1982, placed on record by the respondent, also shows that on 01.04.1982, the land in question has been described as a plot. This transaction dated 01.04.1982 is after the layout drawing of the final Town Planning Scheme had been made on 13.02.1981. It is thus apparent that the respondent knew of the Scheme and indulged in a speculative transaction by purchasing the land in question on 01.04.1982.
The whole Scheme was for the development of an area of 9,24,240 sq. yds., as per the affidavit filed by the appellant referred to above, which remains unrebutted, 98% of the Scheme stands implemented. Only a few pockets of small plots, which are the subject matter of the present litigation, remain to be developed. As per the Scheme, these plots are to be developed as breathing spaces for the residents of the area. We do not intend to choke the residents of the area.
MONIKA2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 10
The argument raised on behalf of the respondent, that the Scheme was never finalised, is to be considered only to be rejected. It is true that after the notification in the year 1983 sanctioning the Town Planning Scheme, there were two notifications dated 08.02.1995 and 28.07.1998, through which certain pockets of the Scheme were sought to be amended, but both these amendments were rescinded vide orders dated 17.05.1995 and 22.10.1998 respectively. With the rescinding of the orders seeking to amend Pocket-A and Pocket-C of the Scheme, there stood no change to original notification sanctioning Town Planning Scheme in the year 1983. In this regard, the stand taken by the State of Punjab in the connected appeal bearing L. P. A. No. 235 of 2008 - Nagrik Chetna Manch, Bathinda vs. Jagjit Singh and others can be usefully referred to :-
"19. The Town Planning Scheme No. 3
Part II was prepared by the District Town Planner, Bathinda and sanctioned by the Govt. vide Notification No. 341-6-C-II-35185 dt. 31.8.83 under Drg. No. DTP (B) 55/81 dt. 13.2.81. Pocket C was prepared by the District Town Planner Bathinda and sent to Municipal Committee, Bathinda vide letter No. 101-DTP (E) SE-64 dt. 13.4.95 after getting the technical approval from MONIKA 2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 11 Chief Town Planner, Pb. For adoption and Publication Govt. of Punjab sanctioned the layout plan of Pocket-C vide Govt. letter No. 1185/86-
ILG-3/8197, dated 28.7.98 and the same was rescind by vide letter no. 1/85/86 ILG-III/12075 dt. 12.10.1998. Therefore, the original scheme i.e. Town Planning Scheme No. 3, Part-II sanctioned by Govt. vide Notification No. 341-6-CII/35185 dt. 31.8.83 Drg. No. DTP (B) 55/81 dt. 13.2.81 still stand."
A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that most of the issues raised in the present case have not even been touched. The writ petitions filed by the respondent have been allowed primarily relying on the order of this Court passed in R. S. A. No. 157 of 1999 - Municipal Committee, Bathinda vs. Hamir Kaur, decided on 22.01.1999. That judgment being a judgment in personam, could not have been formed the basis of quashing the entire Scheme, especially in view of the facts noticed above.
Resultantly, while allowing this bunch of seven appeals i.e. L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 114 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 115 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 116 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 134 of 2008, L. P. A. No. 178 of 2008 and L. P. A. No. 235 of 2008, we set aside the order of the learned MONIKA 2014.12.09 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document L. P. A. No. 121 of 2008 12 Single Judge and further order dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondents.
No costs.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ( DEEPAK SIBAL )
JUDGE JUDGE
November 26, 2014
monika
MONIKA
2014.12.09 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document