IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2911 of 2009 Date of decision: February 25, 2009. M/s Gopal Industires & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioners are aggrieved at the orders dated 21.7.2005 and 11.10.2006 (Annexures P-4 and p-6) whereby change of land use has been denied in respect of the land measuring 16 kanal 7 marlas situate in the revenue estate of village Ganjbar, District Panipat. The petitioners had applied for the grant of change of land use for installation of an industrial unit. The Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana denied the change of land use on the plea that as per the development plan of Panipat, the land falls in the agricultural zone which has been declared as the “High Potential Zone” and no RIS/SSI unit is permitted to be established in the said zone. The petitioners went in appeal and the appellate authority, namely, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana has dismissed the appeal reiterating somewhat same grounds. The appellate authority has further observed that “as per the latest policy decision, the grant of permission for change of land use in the agriculture zone of the High Potential Zone has been made permissible for the maximum area of 2.00 acres falling in the backward block declared by the Industries Department.”. The appellate authority has further observed that, “this restrictive permission of SSI units has now been made permissible by the Govt. for small scale, non-polluting units...”. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the authorities while passing the impugned orders. The adherence to a public policy which ensures that in high potential zone the polluting units are not allowed to be installed, warrants no interference by this Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, however, submits that the industrial unit for which the petitioners sought change of land use is a non- polluting unit and can be installed even if the CLU is granted for a maximum area of 2 acres, as is permissible as per the observations made by the appellate authority. If that is so, the orders under challenge would not be an embargo for the petitioners for re-applying for the grant of CLU as per the latest policy, referred to by the appellate authority and subject to the conditions laid down therein. If such an application is moved by the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with the policy of the State Govt., as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Disposed of. February 25, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge