59 C51Revl 2420 of 2004 1 4 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 9r 1k 1k k ir C Rev No 2420of 2004 Date of decision November 30 2009 1c k ek k R State of Punjab I e PetitIoner 1 Versus C 0 Udham Singh o Respondent k r k k CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE JORA SINGH R k 9r Yr r Present Mr Saurabh Goel Advocate for the petitioner f Mr AS Kalra Advocate for the respondent ek k R J88J 1 State of Punjab throug h Ass istant Engineer P UDA Jalandhar filed this revision to impugnthe order dated 24 1 2004 Vide this judgmentcomplaintunder SectIon 11 II rVVS 31 and 8 1 1 of the Punjab Regulationof Colonies Act 1975 lereitlafter referred to as the ActI was filed by PunjabState thrcughJunior Englneerwas dismissed Complaintwas instituted on the allegation that Udhani Singhis the ovvner of Iand bea ring khasra r 2205 220611 as per jainabarlcfor the year 198839 sittlated at Pha293 Dstrlc Kapurtl2aia Labhu RaiTl Inow deceasedl was the Polver of KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.10 16: 10 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 0 16 4 RevVo 2420 of 2004 2 of Udha m Singh Land owned by Udham Singh was divided into five or more plotsfor the purpose of transfer for residentialcommercial industrial purpose CoIonywas set up as defined in Section 2cl ofthe Act Different plotsmentionedin para no 3 of the complaintwere sold without Iicense as requiredunder W Section 421of the Act for conveningthe Iand into a colonyand for 0 transfer of plotsin that colonyfor residential industrial commercial01 0 anyother construction purpose tn contraventionwith the provisioos I C5 of Section 31 8 1of the Act punishableunder Section 110Iof the I Act Z Learned counsel for the petitionerarguedthat Iani bearingkhasra no 2205 and 220611 was owned by Udham Sinsll Five different sale deed were executed First sale deed is dated 5 1992 in favour of Darshan Singh Second sale deed is dated 4 5 1992 in favour of Balwinder singh Third sale deed is dateo 1 8 1992 in favour of Kulwant Kaur Fourth saie deed is dated 5 23 4 1992 in favour of RachhpalSingh Fifth sale deed also dated 234 1992 was executed in favour of Prabha BansaI SaIe deed were executed throughattorneywithout obtaining Iicence When the Iandwas converted into a colonybyexecutingfive or more than five sale deeds then vendor is Iiablefor punishmentunder the Act Learned counselforthe respondentarguedthat as per storysale deed dated 23 41 992 was executed in favour of Prabha Bansal but Prabha Bansal appearedin the Court and categorically stated that she had not purchasedpropertybearingkhasra no2205 or 220611 Prabha Bansal was not got declared hostile No request KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.10 16: 10 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 0 Sri Rev No420 01 2004 12 aa to reexamine PrabhaBansal Secondlyno witness of the sale deed was No evence on the file that Iand sold as per different saledeed was for residential commercial or industrial or another purpose Record rather shows that Iand is under cultivation Outside the Iimitsof Phagwarathere is no construction 0 Submissionof the Iearned counsel for the resporiderlt seemsto be reasonable one PresumingUdham Sjnghto be owner 0 0 of khasra n 2205 and 220611 and execution of four sale deeds I C5 dated65 1992 4 5 1992 711992 and 2341 992 throughattorney a IS correct one Questjon is whether respondentshad committed any offence punishable under the Act b executIng5tll sale deed After charge respondentshave requestedfor further crossexamination of the witnesses but the witnesses were 70t producedfor fuither crossexamination Fifth sale deed dated 234 1992 was in favour of Prabna Bansal Prabha BansaI appearedas witness on behalf of the but Prabha Bansai specificallystated that she did riot purchaseplot vide another registeredsale deed out of khasra n0 22051220611 Prabha Bansal was not got declared hostile requestto reexamine No effort was made to examine the marginal witness of the sale deed allegedto have been executed infavour 01 Prabha Bansal Evidence on the file shovvs that there is n0 corIstructior Secondlythe propertysold IS outsde the rriunicipai Iimits of PhagwaraCity Photocopyof the jamabandifor the year 1988 089 was producedat the time of argumentand the same IS taken on record Entres of the iarnabandishows that khasa no 22115 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.10 16: 10 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 0 9rRev No1200f 2004 4 and 220611are chahl As per SectIon 2C definitlonof the colonylS as underl 6c1Colony means a compactarea 01 Iand which has been divided or is proposedto be dividedfor the purpose of transfer otherwise than 1 by way of gift Into ve or more plotsfor residential 0 COlTlrrlercial lrldustrial or any other builditlg C purpose other than for agricultureor for any I C5 purposesubservient to but does not I include any area of Iand divided or proposedto he Z divlded as a result of 42 pP il familypartition or partitionofjointholding 1iiilslccesslcr7 or ivloperationof will Section 30f the Act is reproduced as underl 3 Restriction on settingup of coloniesl No pers shall convert any Iand u7l0 a colonyor make vji7 advertisement in relation to a colony wIthoul oblaining a Iicence in accordance with 1170 provisiorlsof this Act and the rules tnaue thereunder 21 Any person clesuingto obtain a Iicense uncler sutSection ll shall nlake an applicationto 110 Director in the prescribed nlanner which shall De accompanied by inc0177eax clearance KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.10 16: 10 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 0 1 1Gr Rev No 2420 of 5 r certificateobtainedfrom an appropriateauthority appointed under the Income tax Act 1961 and such fee as may be prescribed Section 80f the Act is reproduced as underl 8 Restrictions on transfer of plot and erection of buildingcolonyll9 No person shali without obtaining a Iicenceunder sul Section 121of Section 4 negotiate or agree Io transferortransferin any manner any plotIrl a colony for residential industrial comrnercIal or any other purpose 2 no persoIl shai7 erect or rrecl 1t L Ul1 buildingin any colony In respectwhereol Iicence under Subsection 621of Section 4 has not been obtained 131Everypers017erecltno or reerecting811v building117 a colony 1n respectwhereol rl Iicence has been obtained under subecton 21 of Seclion 4 sh all complv with sucIo conditions regardinguse of Iand Iayolllplo7 zoningregulationsite coverage heigllt f Ol buildings set back Iines structural and sanitaryrequirn7ents orclRectural conl designof buildlngsand rnaterial to oe uSeO In erection thereof as may be prescribecl In P State VS am Pal Seth 2001 6RCR KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.10 16: 10 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document l 64 Grl Rev No 2420 of 2004 6 Civill 370 owners dividing the Iand into six piotsand sellingthe plotsfor residential commercial and industrial purpose without gettingIicence as under Section L214Iuthorityfailed to produceevidence to prove that in fact colonywas intended to be set up Moreover complaintfiled 9 yearsafter4uittalof accused uphelc Statedirected to take action againstdellnquentofficer for actlngIil negligentmanner 0 as per revenue record there is no construction C I In the Iand Land is outside the municipallimits There is no 0 9 construction PWBalwinder Singhalso admitted that ihehas planted adA trees in the plot purchasedfor agriculturalpurposes Plot is away from the urban or residential area There Is no construction near the plot Plot is away from the PhagwaramunicipalIimits Jatinder Kumar PW retired Senior Assistant DC office Ka purthala aiso stated that when the Iand is shown as chahi that 5 means Iand is agrlcultural Iand In the sale deeds Iand was shown as chahi PW Daljit Singh JE of HUDA on crossexamination admlttedthat he has no knowledge if as per revenue record the Iand in disputeis still chahi Iand He had no knowledge for what purpose plotswere purchasedVendor is Iiable for punishmentbysellingfive or more than five plotsvide different sale deeds for residential commercial industrial or another build ng purposes other than agcuure Supposefive sale deeds were executed even then the piot were not sold for residential commercial industrial or another KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.10 16: 10 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 Crl Rev No 2420 of 2004 7 1 buildingpurposeTilltoday there is no construction Plots are not withinthe munlcipaliimits As per revenue record Iand is still chahi In the Iightof above discussion petitionwithoutmerit is dismissed November 30 2009 SINGH 1 0 ritu JUDGE 1 0 C I C5 I r 2 1 Xr t A 1 08 Il Vl OO 7 9 Z rA tl Il 5n 91 1 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.10 16: 10 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document