Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Through Harjit Singh vs Mann Singh And Others on 4 July, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM No.34234-M of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.34234-M of 2001 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.07.2013
Punjab State through Harjit Singh, Junior Engineer,
office of Legal Assistant,
Housing & Urban Development (PUDA), Amritsar
...Petitioner
Versus
Mann Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, Punjab State through the Junior Engineer, office of Legal Assistant, Housing & Urban Development (PUDA), Amritsar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the PUDA'), has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of order dated 22.04.1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar (for short, 'the trial Court'), thereby discharging the accused; and order dated 09.02.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, (for short, the revisional Court'), whereby the revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court, has also been dismissed. Sethi Atul 2013.07.09 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.34234-M of 2001 -2- Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner-PUDA, preferred a complaint against the respondent- accused, under Section 11(i) read with Section 8(i) and 3(i) of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975, alleging therein that the respondents being joint owners of the land bearing khasra No.2045, divided the same into more than five plots for the purpose of using the land for residential, industrial or any other building purposes, and thus, committed an offence for setting up a colony as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, without obtaining a valid licence.
The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 22.4.1997, discharged the accused and dismissed the complaint by holding that the complaint is barred by limitation and as the plots were having rooms constructed thereon at the time of sale, thus, not covered with the definition of 'colony'.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition before the learned revisional Court, which was also dismissed on 09.02.2001, wherein, it was held that although the complaint is filed within limitation and the plots having the rooms constructed with boundary walls are covered with the definition of colony, but the offence is yet to complete.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case, the respondent-accused converted the land in question into Sethi Atul 2013.07.09 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.34234-M of 2001 -3- eight different plots by virtue of eight different sale deeds. However, the learned revisional Court wrongly held that there are only four sale deeds. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the provisions of the Act.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court, it is made out that while dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner, it has been observed that the complaint was premature, as only four sale deeds had been executed and under the Act, minimum five sale deeds were required to the executed to bring the same within the definition of a colony.
It has been further observed that Mann Singh sold one plot to Inderjit Kaur, vide sale deed Ex.PW6/A, dated 27.09.1982; Harbans Singh sold plot to Arjun Kumar measuring 166.6 sq.yds, out of a plot measuring 500 sq.yds. vide sale deed Ex.PW5/A dated 11.07.1986; Harbans Singh sold plot to Varinder Kumar, measuring 166.6 sq.yds. out of plot measuring 500 sq.yds, vide sale deed Ex.PW6/C dated 14.07.1986; Harbans Singh sold plot measuring 166.6 sq yds. out of plot measuring 500 sq.yds., vide sale deed ex.PW4/A dated 15.07.1986; Harbans Singh sold a plot measuring 166.6 sq.yds. out of plot measuring 500 sq.yds. to Dr. Arjan Kumar vide sale deed Ex.PW6/B dated 03.01.1986; Harbans Singh sold plot measuring 166.6 sq.yds. out Sethi Atul 2013.07.09 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.34234-M of 2001 -4- of plot measuring 500 sq.yds. to Rakesh Kumar, vide sale deed Ex.PW6/E; Harbans Singh sold plot measuring 166.6 sq.yds. out of plot measuring 500 sq.yds. to Varinder Kumar, vide sale deed Ex.PW6/F; and Pawanjit Kaur sold a plot measuring 7 marlas to Smt. Kamla Rani, vide sale deed Ex.PW6/B dated 08.06.1983. Six sale deeds were made in favour of Arjuna Kumar, Varinder Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, out of two plots measuring 500 sq.yds., and therefore, the number of total sale deeds executed, was held to be four, i.e., less than the number of plots to be sold for setting up a colony. The land sold vide all the sale deeds comprised in Khasra No.2045 and every plot sold had its own boundaries and a constructed room. Two plots each measuring 500 sq.yds. were sold to the members of one family. The petitioner also could not prove that the respondent-accused were setting up a colony as their number was less than five, being the minimum number of plots required to be carved out and sold for the purpose of setting up a colony, under the Act. The recital of the sale deeds, on the basis of which the respondents were sent for trial, itself show that the residential colony had already come into existence prior to the sale-deeds.
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned revisional Court has rightly held that the number of plots sold does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Act, there Sethi Atul 2013.07.09 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.34234-M of 2001 -5- is no scope for interference therein.
It is settled law that powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are distinct from the appellate Court or revisional powers of this Court and in exercise of such powers, this Court cannot make reappraisal of evidence in order to come to a conclusion, different from the one arrived at by the Courts below, unless there is abuse of process of the Court. In this case, documentary evidence was properly appreciated by the Courts below and no other view is possible. No ground is made out to interfere in the judgments of the Court below.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
04.07.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Sethi Atul 2013.07.09 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh