C.W.P. No.12195 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12195 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 Jaskirat Singh …PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- PRESENT: Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. … SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Jaskirat Singh has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.7.2007 (Annexure P17) passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Local Government (respondent No.1 herein) as well as the order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P19) passed by the same authority dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the aforesaid order. Respondent No.1 passed the aforesaid order on the basis of a direction given to him in CWP No.5821 of 2006, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was to be considered and decided by him by treating the said writ petition as a representation. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders. C.W.P. No.12195 of 2011 -2- The petitioner is claiming that the land in dispute measuring 13 marlas purchased by him vide sale deed dated 16.11.1983, which has been shown in the Town Planning Scheme as green belt, be released and he be permitted to use the said land for residential purpose. It is undisputed position that a Town Planning Scheme under Section 192(3) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was sanctioned by the Government on 26.9.1983 with regard to 171 acres of land. In the said Scheme, the land in dispute was shown/reserved as “open space (green cover)”. The said Scheme was finally sanctioned after considering the objections/suggestions so received from the general public and the affected persons and after following the procedure/law of framing of Town Planning Scheme. It is also undisputed position that the petitioner had purchased the land in dispute vide sale deed dated 16.11.1983 after the sanction of the aforesaid Town Planning Scheme having full knowledge that the land was reserved in the Scheme for green belt for public purpose. After purchase, the petitioner started making representations that he may be permitted to use the land in dispute for residential purpose, but the authorities were not agreeing with his prayer. In his writ petition, the petitioner mentioned that the adjoining Site No.36, which was also shown as green area in the Town Planning Scheme, was adjusted and its owner has been permitted to use the said plot as a residential plot, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner should also be considered. This contention of the petitioner has been considered by respondent No.1. It has been found that the owner of site No.36 had purchased the land on 9.5.1979, i.e., much prior to the sanction of the Town Planning Scheme by the Government on 26.9.1983, whereas the petitioner C.W.P. No.12195 of 2011 -3- had purchased the land in dispute thereafter. Therefore, the petitioner on the basis of equality cannot claim the benefit. It has also been observed that the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is available only with regard to a lawful action. In the said order, it has also been observed that the action of the Government with regard to change of user of site No.36 was prima-facie against the law and, therefore, a direction was issued to the CTP (LG) to thoroughly examine all the circumstances in which the user of site No.36 was changed and thereafter take remedial measures to safeguard the public interest. It is not disputed before us that the land in dispute is part of site No.35, which has been shown as green belt in the Town Planning Scheme. The open space (green cover) is necessary for residential colony. This cannot be permitted to change as it will not only adversely affect the environment but also the health of the residents of the colony. The petitioner, knowing fully well that the land in dispute was reserved for open space (green cover), purchased the same meant for green belt. Now he cannot be permitted to change the use of the land. It is undisputed position, as found mentioned in the order dated 16.10.2009, whereby the review application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, that the Municipal Council before finalizing the Town Planning Scheme had invited objections on the proposed Scheme on 11.06.1981 and all the objections so received were duly considered. The vendor of the petitioner had not submitted any objections, therefore, the petitioner being successor-in-interest has no right to raise any objection at this stage. Further, a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of framing of the Town Planning C.W.P. No.12195 of 2011 -4- Scheme, the land of the predecessor, from whom he had purchased, could not have been taken without payment of compensation. In our opinion, the said contention is devoid of merit because before approval of the said scheme, the predecessor of the petitioner did not file any objections. Even otherwise in view of Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Municipal Council can draw up a building scheme for unbuilt area which shall be transferred to it for public purposes, and the amount of land transferred without payment shall not exceed twenty-five per cent of any one owner's land within such unbuilt area. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the order dated 6.12.1984 passed by the Assistant Town Planner and the subsequent order dated 19.10.1987 passed by the Government revising the Town Planning Scheme, argued that while revising the Town Planning Scheme, plot Nos.17,18,19 and 20 were permitted to change the use. It is again submitted here that all those plots were purchased by those persons in February-April, 1979, i.e., much prior to the sanction of the Town Planning Scheme by the Government on 26.9.1983. Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the said order. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for change of use of the land from green belt to residential purpose has been declined. No merits. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 12, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE