CWP No. 3987/2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.3987 of 2008 Date of Order :14.3.2008 Jitin Pal Singh Kochhar ….. Petitioner through Mr.Tushar Sharma,Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and others …..Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letters dated 28.9.2005 (P-12) and 10.10.2005 (P-13) issued by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, whereby the earnest money deposited by him alongwith interest @ 5.5% has been refunded on abandoning of the Garden Villas scheme for allotment of residential plots in Sectors 44 and 47, Faridabad. The petitioner was an applicant for allotment of Garden Villas in Sectors 44 and 47, Faridabad under a scheme floated by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUDA) vide Annexure P-1 dated 23.7.2003. The petitioner had deposited required earnest money of Rs. 5 lacs alongwith his application form. It further appears that the allotment by draw of lots on the scheduled dates could not take place and finally HUDA wound up the Garden Villas Sector’s scheme as CWP No. 3987/2008 2 the land was falling under the Punjab Land Preservation Act,1900 (for short the Act) as per orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 18.3.2004 passed in CWP Nos. 4677 of 1985, 428, 624 and 661/2002 ,M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and others. As a sequel thereto, the impugned letters were issued refunding the earnest money alongwith interest to the petitioner. It is apparent from the records that some of the other applicants under the aforesaid scheme, whose earnest money had also been refunded filed CWP no. 3293 of 2006 before this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.5.2006 (Annexure P-16) holding that the decision of the authorities to abandon the Garden Villas scheme was justified and no motive could be attributed. It is stated that the order dated 18.5.2006 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14839 of 2006 and the same is pending. Since the petitioner had not filed any writ petition in this Court challenging the said action of HUDA, he filed an impleadment application on 24.3.2007 bearing no. IA 3/2007 (Annexure P-17) in the aforesaid SLP pending in Supreme Court and the same was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure P-18) with liberty to move the appropriate forum. Hence, the present writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land over which the Garden Villas scheme was to be implemented fell beyond the area of 5 kilometers from Delhi-Haryana Border and thus was beyond the scope of order dated 18.3.2004 passed in M.C. Mehta’s case. He has further contended that a Labour Court is in its final stage of construction in Sector 47, Faridabad and similarly there are other multi storeyed buildings coming up in the same area where the abandoned scheme was to be implemented. The action of respondent HUDA authorities in abandoning the scheme is thus motivated and liable to be set CWP No. 3987/2008 3 aside. We are not impressed by the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are liable to be rejected. It is discernible from a perusal of letters dated 13.12.1995 and 17.1.1996 Annexure P-15 (colly.), obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, that the land falling in Sectors 44 and 47, Faridabad comes within the operation of the Act. It emerges from a reading of the order dated 18.3.2004 passed in M.C.Mehta's case (supra) that the Forest Department, Haryana had issued a notification in August 1992 under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 for the area involved herein and, further, for conservation of forest lands declared to be as forest by the Forest Department, the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 are applicable. It is for this reason that the District Town Planner, Faridabad vide letter dated 13.12.1995 sent a proposal to the Forest Department for its denotification under the Act and further that an estimate under the “Compulsory Afforestation Scheme” of the Forest Department be prepared. It is further revealed that Forest Department vide its reply dated 17.1.1996 sent an estimate of Rs.1,13,00,000/- for undertaking large scale plantation in order to control/ combat the pollution of the highly industrialized and largely populated city of Faridabad. Therefore, the land being covered under the Act, and proposed to be utilized for the compulsory afforestation scheme, even if the same was beyond the scope of the order dated 18.3.2004 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta’s case, in our considered view would not help the cause of the petitioner. A reading of the letters at Annexure P-15 further indicates that there was a proposal for diverting some areas of the land in Sectors 44,45,46 and 47 for establishing certain residential sectors. Petitioner has not placed on record any document nor shown at the time of arguments the fate of such proposal of diversion of land. Merely by showing photographs at Annexure P-19 and stating CWP No. 3987/2008 4 that now a Labour Court and some other constructions are coming up in Sector 47, Faridabad, it cannot be said that the decision of HUDA at the relevant time to abandon the scheme on the ground that the land was covered under the Act was motivated and arbitrary. It is stated by the petitioner himself that an Advanced Development Plan of Faridabad for 2011 A.D. is under preparation and certain lands are to be used for construction activities like where the Labour Court is being constructed. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the decision of the authorities to abandon the Garden Villas Scheme in the year 2005 for the reason that the land covered under this scheme falls under the provisions of the Act cannot be deemed to be motivated or arbitrary. Hence, the action of the respondent-HUDA to refund the earnest money alongwith interest to the petitioner vide impugned letters dated 28.9.2005 (Annexure P-12) and 10.10.2005 (Annexure P-13) is legal and valid. Dismissed in limine. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE 14.3.2008 joshi