CRM No.M-6549 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-6549 of 2010 Date of Decision : 19.12.2011 Nirmal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present :Mr. M.L.Saggar Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jonny Goyal, Advocate, for Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate, for the respondent-GMADA. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) This petition has been preferred by Nirmal Singh Sidhu through his General Power of Attorney and his attorney Smt. Guganjit Kaur praying for the quashing of Complaint No.345 dated 4.8.2008 filed by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority versus Nirmal Singh Sidhu, Guganjit Kaur (these two petitioners) and four others, wherein allegations have been levelled by the respondent that the petitioners in connivance with others have carved out a colony in violation of the provisions contained under Section 2(i), 3(1), 5(1) and 21(1) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1995') and Section 120-B IPC. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is resident of Canada and owned 07 Kanal 17 Marlas of agricultural land at village Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. He CRM No.M-6549 of 2010 -2- executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Guganjit Kaur wife of Randeep Singh-petitioner No.2. In exercise of the powers vested in her through the General Power of Attorney, Guganjit Kaur-petitioner No.2 executed three sale deeds dated 20.07.2004 for the land measuring 02 Kanal 06 Marlas and sale deed dated 16.11.2004 of land measuring 01 kanal 13 Marlas and 04 Sarsaha in favour of Madan Pal and another sale deed dated 28.01.2005 regarding 04 Kanal 08 Marlas in favour of Harcharan Singh Channi. On the basis of these sale deeds possession was handed over to the purchasers as is apparant from the sale deeds, which has been placed on record as Annexures P-2 to P-4 and not disputed by the respondent. These three sale deeds do not indicate the carving out of a colony as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act 1995. He contends that whatever further sale deeds have been executed by the new purchasers of the property cannot in any manner be made the basis for prosecuting the petitioners by contending that the petitioners had connived with them for carving out of these colonies. He contends that since the ownership of the land has been transferred and the sale of these three pieces of land to the purchasers cannot be said to be a colony, proceedings against the petitioners cannot sustain and the complaint itself deserves to be quashed along with all consequential proceedings. He accordingly, prays for the present petition to be allowed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that there are specific allegations that the petitioners have connived with the other accused for carving out the colony and had committed offence for which the complaint has been filed against them. He further contends that the petitiones being the original owners of the land cannot wash their hands from the sale deeds executed by the subsequent purchasers, which would if taken into consideration fall within the definition of colony making CRM No.M-6549 of 2010 -3- them liable for prosecution. He accordingly prays for the dismissal of the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Perusal of the sale deeds, which has been placed on record would indicate that substantially big areas, owned by the petitioner No.1, were sold by him through his Power of Attorney petitioner No.2 to Madan Pal and Harcharan Singh Channi. After executing, these sale deeds what has been done subsequently the petitioners are not concerned with and for that the others are being prosecuted are accused Nos. 03 to 06 as per complaint (Annexure P-5). Once the sale deeds which have been executed by the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of Section 2(i) of the Act 1995, the proceedings against them cannot sustain. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No.345 dated 04.08.2008 qua the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 only is hereby quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 19.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE