Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Amir Chand And Another on 5 September, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13030 of 1992
DATE OF DECISION : 05.09.2013
State of Haryana and another
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
Amir Chand and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.2.1992 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, whereby the appeal filed by Amir Chand (respondent No.1 herein) challenging the order dated 4.10.1988 passed by the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, rejecting his prayer for change of land use in respect of the land and structure in dispute, was allowed.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the impugned order.
Undisputedly, in the present case, the land and structure of respondent No.1 are existing in the area of Municipal Council, Kurukshetra. Dass Narotam 2013.09.10 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13030 of 1992 -2- In the year 1981, the said land and structure was acquired by the State Government, but subsequently, vide letter dated 30.1.1984 (Annexure P-5), the same was released from acquisition, subject to the condition that respondent No.1 will have no objection in giving 15 Meter wide strip (land) from the above land for widening Kurukshetra - Pipli road. But vide letter dated 26.12.1985, the said condition was also removed. Later on, respondent No.1 filed an application before the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, for grant of a licence to establish a Video Centre in the structure owned by him, after making slight modification. When the District Magistrate invited objections from the Department of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, respondent No.1 moved an application seeking permission to run the said Video Centre in his property, which was declined vide order dated 4.10.1988. The said order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, who was the Appellate Authority under the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Vide order dated 14.2.1992, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, while coming to the conclusion that there was no justification with the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, to refuse the permission for change of land use. It was found that since part of the building was used for commercial purposes, therefore, respondent No.1 can be permitted to use the said premises for running the commercial activity, Dass Narotam 2013.09.10 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13030 of 1992 -3- i.e. the Video Centre, after obtaining necessary permission under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Regulation of Unregulated Development Rules (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'). While allowing the appeal, it was also mentioned that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the areas within the municipal limits, and in view of this fact also, no "No Objection Certificate" is required from the Director, Town & Country Planning.
The aforesaid finding of fact, recorded by the Appellate Authority, with regard to release of the land of respondent No.1 without any condition and part of the premises being already used for commercial purposes, has not been disputed. Therefore, in our opinion, the said finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority that the property of respondent No.1 is existing in the municipal area and is also being used for commercial purposes, cannot be interfered, and respondent No.1 cannot be deprived of to use his property in accordance with law, for running Video Centre, after obtaining necessary permission under the Rules.
As far as the issue with regard to applicability of the Act on the area falling within the municipal limits is concerned, the Full Bench of this Court, while answering the reference made by the Division Bench in M/s Shiva Ice Factory v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 8011 of 1999) vide judgment dated 12.12.2007, has already taken a view that provisions of the Act would not apply to the land situated within the municipal limits. Dass Narotam 2013.09.10 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13030 of 1992 -4-
In view of the said factual and legal position, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the Appellate Authority.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
September 05, 2013 ( MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN )
ndj JUDGE
Dass Narotam
2013.09.10 15:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document